Talk:White privilege/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about White privilege. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Globalize

The article focuses exclusively on U.S., so we either should discuss white privilege in other countries (if we can) or change the article name to something like "White American privilege" or "European American privilege" noting in the article that its commonly referred in the U.S. as just white privilege. --RossF18 (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

White privilege as the absence of racism

Where is the peer-reviewed evidence that makes this phenomena a fact and not a theory? White privilege is a matter of dispute. Making it sound like settled science is hilarious. Einstein's ideas are listed on Wikipedia as theories. Peggy McIntosh wrote an essay. Great. That means that there are some ideas. But they are not a proven fact. ~~--Knulclunk (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.221.240 (talk)

This was not my comment. I am uncertain why it was attributed to me.--Knulclunk (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

White privilege as theory

WP is a theory. That isn't a negative thing to say. Sociology is filled with theories. It certainly does not have enough empirical support to be presented as a fact. Al Einstein couldn't even get his stuff published as laws. They're theories. 72.79.221.240 (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Theory issue resolved

User:Malik Shabazz resolved the outstanding issues here.72.79.221.240 (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion fora?

I realize this hasn't much to do with the article, but can someone please direct me to a discussion forum on this issue? Mrcatzilla (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot support masochism. ;-) --MilFlyboy (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction Tag

The article was listed in the backlog as having a contradiction in the section dealing with statistics, but no reason for the or discussion on the contradiction can be found; only that one exists in that section. I have commented out the contradiction tag for now, but if someone feels it is still a contradiction, please either remove the contradiction or remove the section. Thanks much! Kjnelan (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Biased

Many parts of this article are unfounded biases that were cited from "scholars." A lot of terms used are broad and generalized. The "theory" of white privilege is in itself, discrimination of one race versus another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.112.85 (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kids in school

The sentence in question is about minority children in school. It is being used to set up a white privilege statistic about educational advantage. I am concerned that we are using two separate studies to make a point about "educational advantage". Can't the Shapiro reference cover both? Or should the section be removed? To BlisteringFreakachu --> If the "educational readiness" of minority children is a statistical factor in educational white privilege, should it not be included here? What is your concern?--Knulclunk (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole lot of Original research in the article that should be cleaned up. Thanks for taking action. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaps before kindergarten

"Gaps in school related cognitive skills between minority students and others develop before kindergarten"... The concern that this implies a difference in cognitive skills between blacks and whites is valid. I think the point that was being made is that inequities entering the educational system are magnified by the further by class placement. There are sources that confirm that pre-k school skills are related to income and home stability.

Or we could change "school related cognitive skills" to "school related skills".

Or we could leave this controversial statement out for now an focus on other significant problems with the article.

--Knulclunk (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

awful

The initial incarnation of the 'white privilege' article centered much more around the actual theory of white skin privilege as it tends to take shape in the physical reality of social-activist circles, whereas now when I go to read it, it resembles much more of a racism-recasted-as-white-skin-privilege word-mass. I know the difference between the two because I was one of the ones a few years back who helped mold the article into its original form. It's obviously taken wide shifts and expansions since then, but they all seem to be centered around trying to reclassify the basis of RACISM as one of "white skin privilege", despite a weak line in the beginning saying that 'scholars differentiate it from racism and prejudice.'

The white skin privilege article as it stands now is no more 'sourced' than it was in the days of its original incarnation, and certainly it's not more sourced than anything I tended to add in my most recent edits. The so-called "Criticism" section contains TWO lines of text, from a conservative/right-wing source, that I distinctly remember having been there in the original, with nothing else around it, especially nothing from the legions of radical-left critics who continue to denounce white skin privilege as a pseudo-theory and a bad basis to fight racism from. Those criticisms, while equally unsourced, were part of the original incarnation of the article, and if I felt like coming in and ripping apart the article as it stands and replacing it with an older version, I could do that, although you or someone close to you would undoubtedly promptly change it back.

I find the article as it stands now to be totally self-assured and to relegate "criticism" to a pathetic two-line bit of nothing that is uttered by an unreliable, right-wing source whose opinion on the matter would be of no consequence anyway. THAT IS NOT CRITICISM. The entire rest of the article is self-supporting and self-congratulatory, and makes no mention of the very real objections that anti-racist leftists have against the ethnic-nationalist-tainted "social theory" of white skin privilege that purports to maintain that all white people are on some level racist whether they know it or not. It has personally affected my own political activism, affected the political activism of those around me, sometimes prevented true political unity between our nonwhite comrades and ourselves (thankfully, very few in my circles believe in it), and so on. It is a poison more people should be encouraged NOT to drink. Instead, the article presents it as all-but-fact. If the article is not evened-out within the next few weeks I am going to nominate it for speedy deletion and we can start over. 74.64.126.116 (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion that the article is poorly sourced is laughable, considering that it has nearly 60 footnotes. In particular, both paragraphs in the "Criticism" section are referenced.

As I wrote on your Talk page, if you find verifiable reliable sources that support the criticism of "white privilege" you've been trying to add to the article, please feel free to add them. Until then, they seem like nothing more than a diatribe.

Finally, I'm curious which of the criteria for speedy deletion you think this article falls under. (Hint: None.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"

Your assertion that the article is poorly sourced is laughable, considering that it has nearly 60 footnotes. In particular, both paragraphs in the "Criticism" section are referenced."

The point is actually precisely that the "Criticism" is 1) a section, when it SHOULD be a significant section of the article, as well as including oppositional viewpoints in the introductory section, as do most articles on a social theory rather than a fact; and, 2) two paragraphs long, which is really what is 'laughable', if indeed anything about this unacceptably biased, self-congratulatory article is laughable at all (it personally makes me angry, but we'll leave that aside since no one's personal opinions on their own ever have to do with a wiki article — and please don't lampoon that by taking it out of context with a 'yeah, and all of this is your own personal opinion too' - it isn't).

May I ask you, Mr. Shabazz-- who put you in charge of this article? Who made it so that you, and mainly (if not at this point ONLY) you, gets to keep this article a self-congratulatory, haughty, identity-laden piece that has no place in journalistic objectivity? I propose that, given there's apparently no way to actually delete the article and start over, some opposition figures come in and apply the appropriate research to make this article more balanced. It's really intolerable that such a theory as 'white skin privilege', which is as much opposed on the radical left as it is lambasted (for its own, separate, and usually racist reasons) by the right, is allowed to stand in its current form on wikipedia. We do not need the concept of white skin privilege to fight racism, and the article should include that view loud and clear. It used to, but it's been changed so much and so deeply since then that I can't find an appropriate version to revert to, and it'd probably be flipped right back over to a Mr. Shabazz version if that were tried anyhow. Let's collectively sanction our disapproval please. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz, though it may be that this article could benefit from including more references to articles opposing the view that white privilege exists, I'd ask you to keep a couple of things in mind. One is that it is Wikipedia's policy to reflect scholarly consensus, and a cursory glance at Google Scholar results suggests that the majority of scholars who write about white privilege presuppose that it exists. The other thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is a work in progress, so even if there is a significant minority viewpoint that deserves to be included here, it's okay if the article lacks reference to them while we wait for people to step forward and provide relevant references. And keep in mind that the burden to find evidence for a claim probably shouldn't rest on those who feel it is a minority or fringe viewpoint.

I think the warning tag at the top of the page is problematic for many reasons, not the least of which is the phrase only a theory, which recalls the warning labels the Cobb County board of education wanted to put in the front of biology textbooks. Even if it were edited, I think it would still be unnecessary. It is sufficient to have the call out to people who support the minority viewpoint that you have already placed here on the Talk page. I'd encourage you to have faith that whatever view is the right one, people will (continue to) provide references to support it here. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

((Marie Paradox}}, first of all, I am a communist and Radical Left winger. You are, in your comments, passive-aggressively accusing me of being a racist right-winger, which I find personally offensive and I will not stand for. Secondly, it's not a "minority viewpoint" that white privilege is a theoretical construction, nor is it acceptable to have the criticism section restricted to a few paragraphs all the way in the middle of the article. You are plain wrong, and if you don't know it, other people who have nominated this article for deletion/rewriting have done so.

How dare you call me a racist. The differences between left-wing arguments and right-wing arguments against white skin privilege should be clear to you, and if they aren't, do YOUR research. Revolutionary communists are the last people in the world to be racist. We have done MORE to fight racism than believers in white skin privilege EVER will.

I will be re-tagging this article as 'theory'. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz, the first sentence says in plain English that white privilege is a construct in critical race theory. In other words, it's already identified as theory.

Your assertion that revolutionary communists aren't racist, that they can't be racist, is laughable. There are racists among followers of all political movements, including—yes—revolutionary communists. (See No true Scotsman before you argue that a racist isn't a true revolutionary communist.)

Finally, if you have a problem with the criticism section, stop belly-aching about it and fix it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz, I've responded to your various replies to me at my talk page. As Malik Shabazz has already said pretty much everything I would have wanted to say here and then some, I will simply note that if your view is not a minority viewpoint, it shouldn't be hard for you to find a relevant source to expand the criticisms section. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Or it could just mean that the only people that bother to write about white skin privilege are the ones who support it. (I won't feed into Shabazz's anti-communist stuff, it's not worth it, he is not worth it.) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if this were true, it wouldn't matter. It's Wikipedia's policy to include content only if it is "attributable to a reliable, published source". -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am going to continue to advocate wholesale deletion and re-starting of this article. Apparently I don't have the authority to tag it up as such, but I'm going to fight for this position and I know I'm not the only one that has it. (The fact that some of the others who have anti-white-privilege views have it for actual racist reasons should have no effect on the reality that there are solid anti-racist left-wingers who also oppose it and advocate multi-racial unity instead, many of whom I would also dare to say have done MORE anti-racist work than any white skin privilege advocate ever has.... but yeah, that last part is certainly POV on my end. ;) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Apparently I don't have the authority to tag it up as such" Nonsense. You have been told by three different editors that your POV complaint isn't a valid criterion for speedy deletion. Even if it were, any editor can remove a "speedy deletion" tag. If you are hell-bent on deleting the article, start a deletion discussion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've removed the phrase and other colored groups from the article, because the study of Powell, et. al. does not mention other people of color. Please also take care to note that in the US colored is offensive when used to describe people or groups of people. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Did I put that in? At any rate, I'm sure you are right. Becritical (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

beginning some cleanup

I'll note changes I make as I go along:

Overview

I've made some revisions to clarify things. there was a shift from the claim that 'whites who are confronted with privileges make statements that concur with racists statements' to the assertion that this represents *actual* racism, which I don't believe is consistent with the claims made in the research. if it is, you'll need some sourcing to show how that logical gap is bridged.

also, the last half of the second paragraph doesn't belong in the overview (it's really a detailed discussion of this piece of research, not part of the overview of the topic). I'll move that later when I figure out where it ought to live. --Ludwigs2 23:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

History

I've flagged one phrase for clarification: "The theory of White privilege in America may be seen as having its roots in the system of legalized discrimination that existed for much of American history." theories do not have their roots in discrimination. privilege may have its roots in discrimination, or the theory may have its roots in studies of discrimination. which is intended here? probably best to make a direct quote from the author in reference 9.

also, I've moved reference 14 (tatum) to the end of the previous paragraph, but I don't know if that was correct. it was floating loose when I found it. can someone check what that reference is supposed to attach to, please? --Ludwigs2 23:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wealth

I've tagged this section as PoV. Basically, it presents what I assume are theoretical claims as though they were factual statements. need to reorganize this while section as a description of theoretical claims.

Justice

while the claims made in this section seems to be correct, there is no direct tie-in to the theory of White Privilege. Please provide some kind of source that makes a scholarly claim in this regard . --Ludwigs2 23:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

general

gotta take a break for a while, but in general large segments of this article need to be rewritten to to refocus on scholarship. often this is as simple as taking a phrase like "Racialized employment networks are yet another facet of employment which benefit whites at the expense of blacks" and rephrasing it as "According to Royster, racialized employment networks are yet another facet of employment which benefit whites at the expense of blacks." I'll go through and do it myself over time, but if someone more involved with the article wants to get right at it... --Ludwigs2 23:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, thank you for coming to contribute to the article. I appreciate your constructive criticism and your specific examples of improvements that could be made. So far I have no major objections to anything you've done (though admittedly I've only given it a rather quick look). However, I would like to see you expand on why you marked text in the overview with dubious and clarification needed. The statements seem clear to me, and they have citations, so I'm not sure what the issues are.

Over all the edits look good. Thanks again for all your hard work!

--Marie Paradox (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

no problem. they may be resolvable with simple rewrites, but I was confused about what they meant.

Dan J. Pence and J. Arthur Fields suggest that resistance to the idea of white privilege stems from a tendency of whites to see inequality as a black or Latino issue. White reactions to such critiques include a continuum ranging from theoretical and academic discourse, artistic expression, activism, hostility, and a "wall of silence."
This sentence seems to imply that a bit of academic research by Pence and Fields (and a few unspecified others) is causing some kind of reaction in "whites" (broadly put), a reaction which takes the form of... well, just about everything. On one side, I don't think whoever penned this really meant to imply that the academic research was the cause of this reaction, and on the other side, I find it hard to swallow that 'reactions' in areas as diverse as academic writing, social activism, and artistic expression are all motivated by the same thing in the same way. not to mention the category shift: hostility and "wall of silence" don't fit well with the first three or with each other (and are not particularly clear phrases in any case). I'm just not sure what was intended here, and I can't make sense of what was written.
A study published by Branscombe et al. found that thinking about the benefits gained from a privileged group membership can threaten social identity and evoke justification of status differences between the ingroup and a disadvantaged group.
This is unclear: who is thinking about the benefits gained? in what context are they thinking about this? what are the implied ramifications? my guess is that this is a laboratory experiment in which a number of subjects produced unfortunate justifications when they were pushed on the question of their privileges, but the sentence as written seems to be implying that this is an established effect in people at large (not a laboratory result). If Branscombe et al make extensions of their research to the greater political world then we can quote them on it; if they don't then this this statement needs to be clarified and revised. --Ludwigs2 07:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor. I'll see if I can fix these when I have the time. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What is a seamonkey?

The [[1]] does not appear to work. So can someoone else check this source.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the source for "The absence of racism-Definitions of privilege also include not experiencing racism (the absence of racism) as a privilege" which looks like personal space for unpublished college work. Now deleted.Cathar11 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the verification.Slatersteven (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reinserted the material. If you look up the piece on Google Scholar, you'll see not only that the piece has been published but that it's been cited 941 times. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reservations

"Theorists differentiate it from racism or prejudice because, they say, a person who may benefit from white privilege is not necessarily racist or prejudiced and may be unaware of having any privileges reserved only for whites." I thinik this needs re=wording as it seems from the artciel that most of the material is about the fact that the advantages of being white produce unintended (or at least not legaly reserved) advantage by stint of birth, not actual direct action, the wording implies this is diliberate policiy.Slatersteven (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I maintain my position (respectfully this time) that this article absolutely must be virulently edited by a new crop of editors with the goal of achieving NPOV. In the process, we will probably only make the article minimally-POV rather than NPOV. But that's okay. It just has a long way to go to even begin to not be blatantly POV at this present stage. I am glad I posted this article over on the POV message-board and I encourage everyone to keep the discussion active and vibrant. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Basic point of view dispute criteria (1).

I should have paid more attention to Paradox's and Shabazz's calls for a verifiable basis upon which to initiate an article-wide POV-based challenge. Since I decided to actually look this time, which I really should have done initially, I uncovered the following segment taken directly, verbatim, from the "What Is A POV Dispute" wikipedia policy page, and subsequently found that this article satisfies ALL but one (and the one is very minor) of those criteria very overtly and bluntly (even I was surprised at how completely it does so).

That section reads as follows, with my article-specific notations after each point.

The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see Wikipedia:POV) The article, by the very nature of how it is laid out and reads at the present time, clearly does this.

While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased. The article does this, too, in particular by relegating opposition to the concept to a very shortly-written, concentrated section in the middle of the article, where not everyone will read it. Additionally, the fact that it is a separate section rather than language integral to the article has the effect, intentional or not, of minimizing critical views into insignificance. Finally, even the language that does exist in that Criticism section tends to be unsourced, poorly sourced, or weighted decisively towards anti-WSP views that have a right-wing and/or racist basis — meaning that such criticisms are likely to be dismissed out of hand by those who do not have racist views.

Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance). Point #2 touches on this.

The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another. In this article's case, it is clear that using the history of racism, particularly United States racism, as the basis for this article's 'proof' that white skin privilege exists is a very useful tool for those who constructed it this way, be they more recent editors or past ones (I don't know who originally did it). By using the genuinely irrefutable facts of actually-existing systemic racism as the basis for WSP's argument that "all whites benefit from racism", they run less risk of having the theory challenged because they have actually grafted on the history of a legitimate phenomenon to support the conjectures from something not nearly universally accepted by either academics or the general public. That kind of behavior is unacceptable in academic circles.

The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view. It does, but since the title is meant to describe what white skin privilege, the term, means, that specifically seems to be OK in this instance. (This point is the "but one" of the "all but one" thing I said in the first line of this message.)

A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives. Certainly enough of that happening here given the above.

The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.

Let me clarify something as both a budding journalist in my personal life and as a longtime Wikipedia contributor. To my mind, it is not that those editing the article most recently — the ones who have made and maintained the problems detailed — necessarily have a responsibility to be neutral in their own viewpoints. In fact, it is usually those with a given political viewpoint that are the most adept at editing pages on those political viewpoints (e.g., communists editing communist pages, capitalists editing capitalist pages, irish nationalists editing irish nationalist pages, black nationalists editing black nationalist pages etc.) precisely because they have the most experience with those views and know the most about them. However, even given that general reality, a person with a particular view must still refrain from POV-pushing. An encyclopedic article, like anything objective (e.g. genuine journalism), is supposed to, essentially, 'tell all sides of the issue and then let the reader decide what to do with that information. White Skin Privilege is not evolution, and objections to the theory are not creationism. Any attempt to elevate the status of WSP to evolution's level and to demote criticism of it to creationism's level is hyperbole, and in the face of being hyperbolic actually weakens the case for WSP as a theory — because its defenders would not have to do such things if WSP were so able to stand up on its own as its proponents claim.

Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms. A little tough to know what this point means, so we've got two interpretive options: either it's asking if critical views are compared as persuasively as any other views expressed, which they aren't; or, alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive-towards-the-dominant-view terms, which they are. So any way you slice it, the article just does not measure up.

Thanks all; I just wanted to go through this methodically. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz, I appreciate your tone. I'm looking forward to working with you more on this article.

I'm not going to say a lot about this, because it's my experience that disputes that mention no specifics only end up contributing to editors' feeling exhausted. I'll just say a couple of things:

Your second point leaves me with the impression that you feel we need to give space to opposing viewpoints beyond what is required in proportion to published sources, but this isn't what the page on NPOV says. I'm certainly open to the possibility that there are radical leftist critiques of the views of, say, McIntosh -- enough to warrant mention in the article -- but for that we need sources. The right-wing critiques aren't listed to make all criticism look bad -- they're here because we have to acknowledge that the critiques come from people with relevant credentials. I noticed on the talk page you were entertaining the idea of talking to some of your friends in academia. That might not be a bad idea.

I think there's merit to the claim that this article could be presented in a less POV manner -- or at the very least that making some changes wouldn't hurt. I recommend following Ludwigs2's lead, both as he edits the page and makes specific criticisms here. Even if the only immediate result is that a few things get changed, that's still an improvement. "Every journey begins with a single step," and all that.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2's lead should indeed be followed, as well as that of any other new editors that come in as a result of the article being posted over on the POV discussion-page. Perhaps I underestimated you, Paradox. I had been thinking you and Shabazz were here to keep the article that 'certain slant'. I might have been wrong. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Southland

is http://www.uusouthland.org noted for its editorial control, is it in fact RS? It woould be better to use another source for the article..Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

McIntosh is the source. southland.org just happens to be one of the many places on the web that hosts a copy. I imagine the paper was originally included here due to McIntosh's credentials and the fact that one can't step two centimeters into discussions about white privilege without hearing mention of the paper. If you think it would reflect better on Wikipedia to point to one of the more prestigious institutions that hosts the paper, I won't object if you scan Google Scholar and substitute a link you've found for the link here. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I shouold have made my slef clearer. Is there a better source for Ms McIntosh's article? Also I have having trouble finding the passage being sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you end up seeing two responses to this. I thought I'd replied already, but my post isn't showing. Moving on to the matter at hand . . .

We could cite the article as it appears in Race, class, and gender. We could even link to the Google preview, if you'd find that more acceptable. (This hadn't originally occurred to me, because I assumed that pages would be missing from the preview, but in this case the pages are all there.) -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Paradox, may I please gently remind you that this is going to be a collaborative effort, and yet you still seem to be speaking as if you are the article's sole contributor/editor. Please lighten up. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also there appears to be no mention of the claim that "Definitions of privilege also include not experiencing racism (the absence of racism) as a privilege", but i could be missing it, could you past the text that backs this up here please?Slatersteven (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

From the end of the second paragraph: "As a white person, I realized I had been taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage." -- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That s not what the artcile says. The source does not support the claim that "Definitions of privilege also include not experiencing racism (the absence of racism) as a privilege" It says nothing about rascism not beinig experianced by whites, it says that she enjoys advantages that non-whites do not enjoy.Slatersteven (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

After giving this more thought I've decided to rescind my objections to the removal of the line. It's the sort of line that would work better in the lead, in the overview, or in a summary statement. What's more, it's bad stylistically to have a subsection that consists of only one sentence, and it's unclear at best. (Do the editors mean that definitions of privilege include not experiencing racism or definitions of white privilege specifically?) In short if anyone wants to remove the line, I won't object, and if anyone wants to reinsert a line like this, I'd ask them to take these things into consideration. Also, it would still be nice to have a reference to McIntosh somewhere in the article. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about one of the most widely-cited verifiable reliable sources relevant to the article that there is, so it's not something that should be removed from the article without a lot of discussion. If my intentions are unclear let me say explicitly that if the objection is to the location of the article, then I'd have absolutely no objections to someone's linking to any one of the other 203 places it can be found. If you have any other ideas on how I can meet you or Slatersteven in the middle, please let me know. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

it does not mater how many timies a source is mentioned, if it does not say what is attributed to it.Slatersteven (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yuy might want to look for anotehr source. I am sure I have sen a comment about this, but not in this source. But for the life of me I can't remeber where.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

POV and Oslick, Cook, and Guipe

I'm going to be removing this sentence from the lead: "However, research has demonstrated that refocusing in this way may create unintentionally racist attitudes among whites." The statement has at least three problems: (1) However is a word to avoid, (2) the only thing resembling support for this claim in the entry is in the section that cites Oslick, Cook, and Guipe, and neither the entry nor the cited piece suggests that anything qualifying as research has been done, and (3) the cited paper doesn't seem to have been written by relevant authorities. (Of the three names only Cook gets Google Scholar results, and I'm not sure any of these are the same author.) The last point calls into question how we can justify having the sections Group Guilt and Maintaining stereotypes. I believe these were good faith edits, so there must be evidence out there somewhere, but if time passes and I don't see any links to reliable sources, I or someone else will have to delete the sections. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

feel free. I was just reorganizing and clarifying, so it's entirely possible I goofed things up. no worries. --Ludwigs2 00:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you be bold and just take out everything without decent sourcing? Becritical (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to note...

While I'm not quite "be bold" enough to do it myself, the NPOV problems with this article hit me like a brick in the head when I happened upon it. I'm glad to see such good discussion here, on the talk page, by dedicated wikipedians such as you guys. Thanks, keep up the hard work! 71.8.193.122 (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Kikodawgzzz, why have you put a notice of "undue weight" on the page? Do you have any constructive suggestions as to how the article can be improved in such a way that you feel it no longer requires the notice? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag. When Kikodawgzzz is prepared to discuss her/his concerns, she/he can put it back. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tags Revisited

If there are no objections in the next couple of days, I'll be removing the tag from the Justice section. I've added a citation to McIntosh's piece, which I think makes it sufficiently clear that facts about disparities in the way white people and people of color are treated can be organized into a theory of white privilege.

Eventually I hope to be able to remove the other tags from this page as well, so I'm hoping that if there are objections to the current state of the article -- objections based on Wikipedia's principles -- that editors will raise them here and offer specific suggestions on how to fix the problems. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Though I don't think it should be necessary to spell out at every turn that theorists have explained the inequalities listed in this article in terms of white privilege, I've nonetheless made the connection clear in two of the subsections. I've also removed a tag that headed one of these subsections. Unless someone can tell me how the article can be improved while staying in line with Wikipedia's principles, I'll be removing the tag in the lead in the near future. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the tags from the head of the entry, because (a) no justification for the insertion of the tags has been given, (b) the article has not been substantially changed since the last time tags were added without justification, and (c) the article doesn't seem to meet the criteria for the inclusion of either tag. If anyone feels that the article has factually inaccurate or biased content, please give specific examples of how the article violates Wikipedia policy, and let's try to reach consensus about it here on the talk page. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

undue weight box

Refusing to admit or actually balance the article as I and others have repeatedly asked on the one level, and also on the other level to refuse to allow even the tags that would direct attention to those still unresolved balance issues that I and others have repeatedly asked, is tatamount to censorship. It is effectively saying, "There is nothing wrong with this article. Therefore the tags are coming down. And if any new tags come up, no matter their explanation, if we think there's no reason for them then they're all coming down too." I'll be very surprised at you two, Shabazz and Paradox, if you agree with me here. It's your job to control this article, isn't it? I mean, that's what you do. Your identity politics and black nationalism is right, and everyone else's views are automatically racist and wrong. Correct? So, of course, you're going to take the tags down again. And suppress discussion of this article again. Just like you always do. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain how removing the tags only after making many edits, including edits for POV, amounts to "refusing to admit or actually balance the article"?
If you had an issue with the tags being removed, why didn't you say something about it when I first said I'd be doing so 18 days ago, and why didn't you give specific examples of what remains to be done?
Why are you even now only reposting criticism you made months ago? Have you considered that the fact you can make the same criticisms even after edits have been made to nearly every section is an indication that your criticism is too vague to be of use to other editors? When I pointed out that Ludwigs2 actually makes edits and specific criticisms, you agreed that hir lead should be followed. Why haven't you done that? Please note that, as has been pointed out to you before, drive-by tagging is discouraged and that if you can't point "to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" that it is our responsibility to remove the tags.
Could you please identify the "others" who still believe this article has issues that warrant the inclusion of the tag? AFAICT all the issues that Ludwigs2 and other editors had have been addressed. In any case I'll be making the good faith assumption that they're assertive enough to take advantage of the 18 days they had to object to the announced changes.

Finally, I'll note that as a white person one of the privileges I have is that when I do anything that's perceived as addressing white privilege, it is still people of color who take the blame—or at least have to share it with me. Malik Shabazz had absolutely nothing to do with my recent removal of tags. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz, in addition to the above please remember that Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks. Note that in particular "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is listed as unacceptable. (I for one am not a nationalist of any sort, but I suspect that the falsehood of your accusation isn't going to endear you to Wikipedia's administrators.) -- Marie Paradox (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For all editors' convenience here's a comparison between the article as it currently stands and how it stood before Ludwigs2's earliest edit: Diff. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

article's relation to basic point of view dispute criteria, restated.

And since Shabazz and Paradox insist on insisting that there has been "no evidence" provided that still puts this article under PRINCIPLED dispute, here is my outline again that I wrote a couple of months ago. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Basic point of view dispute criteria (2)

I should have paid more attention to Paradox's and Shabazz's calls for a verifiable basis upon which to initiate an article-wide POV-based challenge. Since I decided to actually look this time, which I really should have done initially, I uncovered the following segment taken directly, verbatim, from the "What Is A POV Dispute" wikipedia policy page, and subsequently found that this article satisfies ALL but one (and the one is very minor) of those criteria very overtly and bluntly (even I was surprised at how completely it does so).

That section reads as follows, with my article-specific notations after each point.

The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see Wikipedia:POV) The article, by the very nature of how it is laid out and reads at the present time, clearly does this.

While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased. The article does this, too, in particular by relegating opposition to the concept to a very shortly-written, concentrated section in the middle of the article, where not everyone will read it. Additionally, the fact that it is a separate section rather than language integral to the article has the effect, intentional or not, of minimizing critical views into insignificance. Finally, even the language that does exist in that Criticism section tends to be unsourced, poorly sourced, or weighted decisively towards anti-WSP views that have a right-wing and/or racist basis — meaning that such criticisms are likely to be dismissed out of hand by those who do not have racist views.

Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance). Point #2 touches on this.

The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another. In this article's case, it is clear that using the history of racism, particularly United States racism, as the basis for this article's 'proof' that white skin privilege exists is a very useful tool for those who constructed it this way, be they more recent editors or past ones (I don't know who originally did it). By using the genuinely irrefutable facts of actually-existing systemic racism as the basis for WSP's argument that "all whites benefit from racism", they run less risk of having the theory challenged because they have actually grafted on the history of a legitimate phenomenon to support the conjectures from something not nearly universally accepted by either academics or the general public. That kind of behavior is unacceptable in academic circles.

The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view. It does, but since the title is meant to describe what white skin privilege, the term, means, that specifically seems to be OK in this instance. (This point is the "but one" of the "all but one" thing I said in the first line of this message.)

A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives. Certainly enough of that happening here given the above.

The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.

Let me clarify something as both a budding journalist in my personal life and as a longtime Wikipedia contributor. To my mind, it is not that those editing the article most recently — the ones who have made and maintained the problems detailed — necessarily have a responsibility to be neutral in their own viewpoints. In fact, it is usually those with a given political viewpoint that are the most adept at editing pages on those political viewpoints (e.g., communists editing communist pages, capitalists editing capitalist pages, irish nationalists editing irish nationalist pages, black nationalists editing black nationalist pages etc.) precisely because they have the most experience with those views and know the most about them. However, even given that general reality, a person with a particular view must still refrain from POV-pushing. An encyclopedic article, like anything objective (e.g. genuine journalism), is supposed to, essentially, 'tell all sides of the issue and then let the reader decide what to do with that information. White Skin Privilege is not evolution, and objections to the theory are not creationism. Any attempt to elevate the status of WSP to evolution's level and to demote criticism of it to creationism's level is hyperbole, and in the face of being hyperbolic actually weakens the case for WSP as a theory — because its defenders would not have to do such things if WSP were so able to stand up on its own as its proponents claim.

Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms. A little tough to know what this point means, so we've got two interpretive options: either it's asking if critical views are compared as persuasively as any other views expressed, which they aren't; or, alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive-towards-the-dominant-view terms, which they are. So any way you slice it, the article just does not measure up.

Thanks all; I just wanted to go through this methodically. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz has highlighted several significant issues, and it does not seem that they have been addressed in any way. Each of the points above deserves to be treated individually and seriously, and the tags should quite properly remain in place on the article until they have been. As a previously uninvolved editor I will now restore those tags and request that these problems be addressed. Thanks, Doc Tropics 16:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I and other editors have tried to address Kikodawgzzz's concerns, but when we ask for specific instances, Kikodawgzzz is not forthcoming. Will you do us the kindness of pointing to specific examples of problems that remain and tell us how they can be fixed to your satisfaction? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

DT, you recently added tags to the article and asked other editors to "leave these tags in place until *after* the problems have been fixed". Could you please give specific examples of what changes can be made and are actionable under Wikipedia policies?

Kikodawgzzz's list is problematic for reasons that are too many to list, but let's take a couple of examples. How, for example, can we fix the fact that "the criticism section is in the middle of the article", when the criticism section is already at the end, excepting the external links, footnotes, and bibliography? Do you propose that we violate Wikipedia's manual of style? And how do you propose we fix the fact that most of the criticism has a "right-wing and/or racist basis"? When it comes to the minority of scholarly articles that argue that white privilege doesn't exist or is exaggerated, most of them are "right-wing and/or racist". Do you propose that we violate the Wikipedia policy of including material in proportion to the reliable, independently verifiable sources that can be found to support it?

And, Kikodawgzzz, if you would like to shed some light on this, I welcome you to do so. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Specific details are now being discussed individually beginning in the section below. I suspect the best approach will be to address each section individually as I have seen issues with every section that I've checked references on so far. Doc Tropics 20:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wealth and Justice sections

These two sections do not in any obvious way relate to the academic theory of "white privilege". Instead, they seem to be direct arguments that whites occupy a privileged position in society for various sociological reasons, which could equally well imply racism or overt oppression, rather than the more subtle form of racial misrepresentation presupposed by WPT. do we have sources that tie these discussions in these sections directly into the academic literature? if not, we should probably remove them per wp:COATRACK. --Ludwigs2 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the sources in the Wealth section specifically mention white advantages unrelated to racism or oppression. They are good.--Knulclunk (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Justice section is more troubling and seems to be on the edge of WP:SYNTH. I would like to see an overview how traffic stops and jail time relate to white privilege. Also, the McIntosh essay is really just an essay.--Knulclunk (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say the essay is "really just an essay"? Do you believe this casts doubt on its usefulness -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This entry about white privilege -- not about any theory that surrounds it. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

MP, Regarding your first comment, of course an essay is not a reliable source, see WP:RS for details. I'm afraid I don't understand your second comment. "White Privilege" is itself a theory. The entire article is about, and based on, theory. What do you mean when you say the article is not about theory? Doc Tropics 17:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything on the page that suggests that no essay should ever be considered a reliable source, but I do see plenty that suggests that a piece by an authority that has been widely cited by other authorities is acceptable. Such is the case with the McIntoshp piece.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps the article is about a theory; the lead currently says a lot more about theory than what white privilege actually is. However, white privilege is not a theory. White privilege is "a highly structural and spatial form of racism"[2]. Any reliable source you find is going to say something resembling this. (I hope this also answers the question you ask below about the "Justice" section.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie Paradox (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading the brief "Justice" section a couple of times, I'm still confused. It states that a black suspect is 3 times likelier to be searched than a white suspect. That sounds like plain ol' rascism to me; how does this qualify as White Privilege rather than rascism? For that matter the entire section looks like "regular" rascism, except for the opinion piece by MCIntosh. Doc Tropics 18:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Marie, we have to be very clear about what we are doing in this article. "White privilege" can have a couple of different senses:

White privilege can refer to the actual privileged life conditions that Whites experience (with respect to ethnic groups worldwide, and also with respect to local ethnic minorities). This, however, isn't really best called "White Privilege", but is actually but is actually something closer to racial inequality more broadly put.
White privilege in an academic context, however, refers to a particular theoretical position about how the advantages of whites are maintained (one that sets itself off from both theories of racism and socialist theories of racialized capitalism). If you read a bit farther in the link you gave, the author says "Thus, in addition to interpreting racism as discriminatory [garbled] and malicious intent, I also examine a less conscious but hegemonic form of racism, white privilege." He's clearly talking about the same thing, just calling it a subtle form of racism rather than a category in its own right

so which are we writing an article about? we can do both without turning it into a mishmash. --Ludwigs2 19:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, even after following the link, I fail to see how these examples are anything "regular" racism. If White Privilege is distinctly different, our text needs to be more clear. Right now I see this entire section as "suspect" in terms of whether or not it really belongs in the article. Doc Tropics 20:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking that we might approach this by moving those issues into the overview: basically it would be something like:

There are well-documented empirical results that show differential treatment for minorities (traffic stops, searches, economic differences, etc, etc.). Often these issues are considered simply as forms of racism, but research shows that overt racism has been in steady decline. The theory of white privilege offers a different explanation of the phenomena...

see what I'm getting at? think something like that would work? --Ludwigs2 20:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That phrasing is certainly a far more accurate way to present the information. I'm still troubled by the underlying assumptions and find them quite dubious, but the fact that some people assert this to be a true is apparently verifiable. And after all, it's social studies, not real science : ) Doc Tropics 20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This approach seems promising. Thank you, Ludwigs and Doc, for pointing to a specific problem, offering a solution that is actionable within Wikipedia policy, and seeking consensus with your fellow editors. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put some time into this over the next few days and see what I can do.

@ DocT - you've made a slight error: social studies is what high school students are forced to learn in the junior year. social 'sciences' are disciplines that study problems too complex to be answered by pushing buttons on big machines. though I'll admit, all the blinking lights and 'whirr-whirr' noises are pretty cool; the physical sciences are hella fun, and good for big-screen TVs (and things like that).

P.s. <heh heh heh heh heh...> Zoinked! --Ludwigs2 16:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to Basics -- What's the subject?

This article needs to get straight whether it's about a concept or a phenomenon. It starts off about a concept in critical race theory: "... a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from society as on the disadvantages that people of color experience." But instead of discussing in more depth the notability of that concept in the U.S., as a so-named section of an encyclopedia entry should do, the entire "White privilege in the United States" section is a discussion of evidence for the existence of a phenomenon. If in doubt, note that it's rather silly to talk about evidence for or against a concept. (If you can conceive it, the concept exists.)

On the other hand, I think there would be several problems with instead trying to edit the article to be consistently about a social phenomenon: 1) it would be a rather POV title for it, arousing guilt in one group in an attempt to get through emotionally, and 2) it's not a distinct phenomenon. Ultimately it's just a subset of "race-correlated differences", namely those in which "whites" have what's generally considered to be the more desirable situation. Given that, it makes perfect sense why the findings cited start sounding a bit non-specific to "white privilege" as has been mentioned above. They're not specific, because it isn't distinct (from, e.g., "the disadvantage of people of color").

Encyclopedic coverage is all about notability, right? Well, the notability of the subject of the article is in how it differs from the more traditional conceptualization of prejudice and its effects. As far as I understand it, the concept is notable in two respects: it allows more correlations to be cited as evidence of the phenomenon of "racism" (in the broadest sense) than the traditional construction (of more active discrimination), and it leads to more emotional engagement with the existence of the inequalities on the part of whites. It's certainly appropriate to cite findings of inequalities in order to demonstrate differing consequences of different conceptualizations, but that's not the context in which most of the findings appear to be mentioned in the current article. --MilFlyboy (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

We're working on this - see the above thread - it's just a matter of getting time to do the actual work. --Ludwigs2 16:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding "Citation Needed" doesn't make your opinion into a factual statement

From the "Persistence" section: "Although all legal barriers to racial equality have been removed in most Western countries, white privilege exists to a certain extent de facto almost everywhere[citation needed]."

Once again, White Privilege is not undisputed fact; this line is the most glaring example, but there are WAY too many sentences like this, with an opinion stated as a fact, followed by an appeal to "scholars". For this article to be worth anyone's time, all statements along the lines of "Whites have it made" need to be more like "Mr. A. Scholar argues that whites have it made." The criticism section is pathetically short; either eliminate it altogether and just write a balanced article, or just make the criticism section longer--there isn't necessarily anything POV about taking a controversial topic and organizing the pro and con arguments together, as long as it is clearly identified as such, and we don't have statements of opinion masquerading as scientific fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.195.165 (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the citation, I suspect that a well-meaning person who did not know about bundling citations intended the citations that do occur in the paragraph to cover the sentence you quoted. Then another well-meaning person did not understand the previous editor's intent and added the "citation needed" tag. Unfortunately I do not currently have access to Zetzer's piece. Can someone who does clear this up?

I don't think it's a problem to say that white privilege exists. It may not be "undisputed fact", but it is the consensus of WP:V verifiable authorities. Even Shelby Steele concedes that it exists. If there is a problem with the criticism section it is that it gives too much attention to viewpoints that are fringe or near-fringe. I will do as you suggest and delete the criticism section. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Black doll white doll research

Need to include the test done of how African-American children react to White dolls and Blacks dolls as further proof of the legacy of white privilege. Also a brilliant article by Kenyan writer (forget her name) will come back with it.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the work you've done to improve the article. If it helps, the doll study was conducted by Kenneth and Mamie Clark. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard Paragraph

As I do not see a direct connection between the recently added paragraph and education, I will be moving it. Assuming it should stay at all, there are still some fixes that should be made. First, it is not clear what is meant by arguments in favor of white privilege. Second, the paragraph equates remedying white privilege with preferences, which is dubious. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed. See below. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits (or, Who is Hugh Murray and why do we care what he thinks?)

The following paragraph was added by an IP editor today:

Almost all the arguments in favor of white male privilege are based upon statistics showing whites earn more than a given minority, whites have higher education, whites have more prestigious positions, own more homes, etc.^{[clarification needed]} The implication is that minorities have thus been the victims of discrimination and deserve preferences to overcome its effects.^{[dubious – discuss]} When the same methods are used to analyze other groups, however, that conclusion is rarely drawn. For example, the economic gap between African Americans and whites is smaller than that between Jews and non-Jews. Whites are not nearly as over-represented, statistically, in lucrative occupations, in the media, in Congress, on the Supreme Court, as are Jews. The logic of the proportional representation presupposition leads to the (for many unpalatable) conclusion that Jews are the most unjustly privileged group of all. But few are calling for preferences for gentiles so they can claim their allegedly "fair share" of the economic and cultural pie.<ref>Hugh Murray, "White Male Privilege: A Social Construct for Political Oppression?," ''Journal of Libertarian Studies'' 14:1 (Winter 1998–99): 135–150. See also Murray, [http://www.anthonyflood.com/murrayaffirmativeaction.htm "Affirmative Action and the Nazis."]</ref>

The source is an article by Hugh Murray, but not any of the Hugh Murrays who have Wikipedia articles. The footnote refers the reader to a second article by Murray. Who is Murray and why is his opinion considered so important that it merits an entire paragraph? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That was good detective work. Thank you. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is important to present both sides. Whether Murray is the best source is not as important as being sure to include both sides. We should keep him in until a better source is found. What Murray is saying is that it may be "White Privilege" or "Religious Privilege" or "Privilege Privilege", but we can't isolate it or measure it. I don't know whether I agree with him or with any of the other authors quoted in the article, but we must do a better job of explaining the theory, explaining the criticisms of the theory, and explaining the data supporting the theory. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Whether Murray is the best source is not as important as being sure to include both sides." Perhaps this is generally true, but this is not Wikipedia policy. From the page on NPOV: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint," and, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" (emphasis mine in both cases). -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No sources are in the article either way as to whether "white privilege" is an accepted view, the majority view or a tiny minority view. We can't just delete whole paragraphs which are sourced just because we disagree with a viewpoint. Racepacket (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll concede that there are currently no sources mentioned in the article concerning how widespread the view is. But there are other indications. One heuristic I like to use involves checking Google Scholar. Consider that a Scholar search yields mostly papers that presuppose that white privilege exists. Or consider that the top two results are papers by McIntosh, each of which has been cited over 1000 times. If you know of other heuristics to use, I am open to considering them. As for the deletion, the paragraph had problems besides the poor quality of the source (none of which are relevant to this section). -- Marie Paradox (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This Hugh Murray does not have a Wikipedia article, but perhaps he should. He is a veteran of the civil right movement in New Orleans in the early '60s and a scholar of the Scottsboro rape trials of the early '30s. In the early '70s, he and I worked for Herbert Aptheker on the latter's Du Bois correspondence and annotated bibliography projects. Murray is now, however, a critic of affirmative action and the use of the notion of "white skin privilege" on the basis of the same principles which motivated his participation in the CRM. The article of his posted on anthonyflood.com, which was cited in the now-deleted paragraph, is one of many articles that establish his prima facie standing in this discussion, Malik Shabazz's command of the literature to the contrary notwithstanding. A visitor to that article might have gone to the main "Hugh Murray" page which provides a biosketch and select bibliography, many items from which are available on that site. In the now-deleted paragraph, which he originally contributed and I later revised, Murray highlighted an overlooked implication of the proportional representation argument (the validity of which, he claims, many WP arguments presuppose), namely, that if over-representation is prima facie evidence of unjust social advantage, it follows that Jews have an even greater unjust advantage over non-Jews who therefore ought to be given compensating extra consideration in hiring, promotions, etc. Murray assumes that most defenders of the soundness of WP would not take that step. He's not saying that they should, but the deleter of the paragraph has prevented the reader of this article from entertaining that possible inconsistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchristian (talk • contribs) 17:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You raise some good points here. Perhaps we should not dismiss Murray's papers out of hand. There are still a few problems though. One is that we seem to be giving Murray's ideas more weight than is due. Another is a question of scope. On the face of it Murray is not talking about any version of Affirmative Action (AA) that anyone has ever advocated (he seems to ignore the word qualifying in the Bergmann citation), so I am not sure what the most charitable interpretation of his words is. But one way of going about it is to take him as not criticizing white privilege as a whole but white male privilege as it relates to AA. If that is the case, how can we justify referencing Murray to support a broad criticism of white privilege, if his claim was much more limited than this? It still seems to me that this reference is far too questionable to support anything within this article. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Reception in the Academic Community

Perhaps the article should add a section on reception by the academic community. For example, Augustana College held a "White Privilege Summit 2010" conference on March 25, 2010. http://www.augustana.edu/x19261.xml There may be similar sessions held elsewhere that are worth covering. For example, the class discussed in http://www.stonehill.edu/Documents/Center%20for%20Teaching%20and%20Learning/white%20women.pdf. Racepacket (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

May I ask why there is still a dispute over the material that has recently been removed/added, particularly the Hugh Murray paragraph? It contains editorial language (e.g. however). It is unclear. The cited source's usefulness as a source for Wikipedia's purpose has been questioned by two editors. Perhaps most importantly, not even the cited source supports (all) the claims made in the paragraph (it says nothing about home ownership or passing things on from generation to generation). If there is a reason this should remain a matter of contention, please tell me what it is. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:WTW does not ban the use of 'however' -- it merely says use it carefully. I think that a problem with this article is that it is a POV fork from critical race theory. In that article, the pros and cons of CRT are presented. In this article, there is an spin-off that takes just one CRT construct and fails to explain it. Ideally, the article should define the CRT concept of white privilege, explain its use, and then discuss the history of the concept and the arguments pro and con in light of comtemporary United States society. The paragraph in question, which no longer focuses on just Hugh Murray, is intended to be a start of presenting the criticisms of the theory as a part of the Overview section. Racepacket (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that WP:WTW is not an outright prohibition. The problem is that your use of the word here undermines what comes before it, making it an instance of editorializing. If the paragraph no longer focuses on Hugh Murray, unsourced material should be removed. I also note that you have not responded to the other three objections to the content. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Disputed

If you found this section via the tag on the start page, I should point out that the tag was added to address different concerns. Thus if the tag is to be removed, there should first be discussion not only with me but also with any other editor who has concerns.

As for my concerns, I find the following parts of the current text to be dubious:

"Advocates suggest that solutions to problems of racial inequality can only be achieved by explicitly discussing the implicit advantages that whites as a group hold in society. Critics suggest that the theory is addressing such a complex problem that using data to verify the theory is impossible."
"The white privilege theory has an underlying assumption that whites and Blacks and other groups deserve shares of society's goods and services in (rough) proportion to their relative size and, if any of them receives less than that proportion, then that is prima facie evidence that that group has been socially wronged."

For the most part these snippets have already been specifically addressed or they fall under general criticisms I've made of the recent edits. If anyone would like me to elaborate on any of the specifics, I would be happy to do so. Indeed I hope that people will try to engage me in conversation before leaving the text untagged, because the idea is to find WP:CONS.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, this article appears to be a POV fork of critical race theory, and it is hard to discuss "white privilege" separately from that larger debate. According to the article, "white privilege" was used as an educational tool, but that sources indicate that when presented to groups, rather than being accepted, it is met with a "wall of silence." Next, with regard to "white privilege" being used as a basis of public policy for resolving how to distribute social benefits, there is an implicit assumption that inequality in outcomes is somehow wrong or should result in "guilt." The critics question that. Their argument can be summarized that "privilege means getting disproportionately more" and that there is nothing bad about those "extra" benefits. Finally, there is an argument as to whether "white privilege" can help explain data better than other approaches -- can better outcomes be attributed to race or to other factors, such as the educational level of parents, better nutrition, etc.

I renew my suggestion that we add a section about how "white privilege" is received by the academic community.

I believe we have an obligation to summarize both sides, as was done in the critical race theory article. I am open to copy editing, better word choices, etc., but I think that the article should avoid "building a case" to try to pursuade the reader that one side is correct. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have argued that to give the critics you speak of time in this article is to give them undue weight. You have neither offered reason to dismiss my heuristic nor offered a heuristic of your own to determine that this is not giving undue weight. In most contexts this would be taken as conceding the point.

Part of the problem with your recent edits is that the "implicit assumption" looks like a strawman. Consider, for example, one of the privileges McIntosh lists: "I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group." How can this be reduced to a claim about proportional distribution of benefits? Which academic who does not deny the existence of white privilege has attempted to do so?

As for how white privilege has been received in the academic community, I am not as opposed to this as I am to recent edits that seem to be violations of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I simply do not see the motivation or see how it would enhance the article.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW this article is not a POV fork. At its earliest it was article that gave undue weight to unsourced radical leftist criticisms of the view that white privilege exists.[3] This article is what it is now, because editors have tried to create an article based on reliable sources. While I welcome the recent interest in this article, I hope that new editors will look at past edits and discussions and try to understand why we have done things the way we have before retreading old ground and repeating past errors. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to be removing some content from the article, mostly for reasons listed in this section or elsewhere on this talk page. I think there are editors who believe that given enough time the contentious content can be reshaped into something that deserves a presence on Wikipedia. This is one reason I offered an editor the compromise that I would not revert edits as long as there was discussion before certain tags were removed, but this was rejected. I do not see what choice I have now but to remove content that violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines (I arguably should not have allowed it to stand to begin with). I hope that editors will try to engage in dialogue here before reinserting material that other editors are likely to question. This approach may mean that it will take longer for the material you want to see included find its way into the article, but it will spare Wikipedians the ugliness of constantly shifting text. I for one like to think that there is a win-win outcome in every scenario and would like to work with other editors to find out what it is in this one.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Title

We should reconsider the name of this article. It creates the false impression that the article is about possible entitlements or benefits that stem from being a member of a particular group. However, the actual article appears to be directed toward a particular construct in critical race theory. Hence a title such as "white privilege construct" or "white privilege in critical race theory" may be more useful and appropriate. Racepacket (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC) I note that the article was previously entitled "White privilege (sociology)" and "White skin privilege". Racepacket (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The concept in critical race theory is precisely about "possible entitlements or benefits that stem from being a member of a particular group." Why would changing the name help?--Carwil (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Beginning in June of this year there was a consensus that we should clean up the article to make it clear that it is about white privilege and not any theory thereof. I believe we should continue with this work. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"White Privilege Advocates" and "Theory Proponents"

Because I do not think it is mentioned elsewhere, I would like to address other problems with recently removed content. For various reasons it does not make sense to continue to insert phrases like white privilege advocates and theory proponent into the article. One reason is that white privilege advocate looks like someone who advocates maintaining white privilege, and the people who have been referred to in this way are the least likely proponents of this view. Also, this article is not about white privilege theory; it is about white privilege. The lead already says that white privilege is such and such according to critical race theory, so a reader of recently removed content would be excused for thinking that that theory proponents refers to proponents of critical race theory.

But perhaps the biggest problem with these edits is that they amount to editorializing. No one has ever modified the article to refer to Shelby Steele as a white privilege advocate or a theory proponent, despite the fact that he concedes that white privilege exists. These terms have the effect of minimizing the arguments made by people who hold the strong view that white privilege is not only existent but also majorly problematic.

This article did once have an issue of bias (vestiges of which may remain), which Ludwigs2 and others helped us resolve by replacing statements like, "Some theorists say . . .," with statements like, "Beverly Daniel Tatum says . . . ." This is how Wikipedia recommends dealing with bias. There is no need to use phrasing like, "Beverly Daniel Tatum, theory proponent, says . . . ." This does not remove bias; on the contrary it introduces it.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Atrociously slanted & highly offensive/condescending...

This entire article uses language designed to pat white privilege theory on the back. The tone, for lack of a good term, is something like: "Yeah, this is a "theory". But any reasonable person can see it's all true. If not, you're racist and don't know it!". I even find many parts of it intellectually and racially insulting. Not just towards myself but towards other groups/races. I'm going to point out some things which are bothering me about it.

The first problem is that the article presupposes the existence of race. It uses loaded statements are "weasel words" based upon that assumption to suggest the author's POV is "obvious" to the reader. In many places, the wording is just extremely poor -- sometimes with the apparent aim of making a (factual) statement intentionally vague/ambiguous to load it in favor of the author's POV.

There are statements like these which are simply highly insulting to me:

"Even schools that appear to be integrated often segregate students based on abilities. This can increase white students' initial educational advantage, magnifying the "unequal classroom experience of African American students" and minorities."

WHAT!? This implies that whites have greater cognitive/academic abilities than minorities (i.e., blacks)! If "based on abilities" can "increase white student's educational advantage", then the author has presupposed white students have more academic ability or some sort of "biological advantage". It almost sounds like it comes from the mouth of a white supremacist.

The way it opens is also bad: "Even schools that APPEAR to be integrated..."? I also call into question the use of the word "segregate" -- especially when we know what connotation that holds in the issue of race and education (especially in the US). Suppose there was an article about a German person who was convicted of setting fire (arson) to a store which happened to be owned by a Jewish person, and we throw in a statement like "[...] is a German man who is accused of intentionally sparking a fiery holocaust which destroyed a Jewish-owned business."? Even though an accepted definition of the term "holocaust" is "great destruction caused by fire", it would be EXTREMELY inappropriate. Though the way "segregate" is used here isn't as offensive, I still find it inappropriate and it suggests to the reader that schools are intentionally "segregating" white and non-white students (totally untrue).

Schools often offer what are called "advanced" or "college preparatory" courses for students who *request* to be placed in such courses (I took such courses in high school). They're simply specialized classes which usually move at a faster pace and cover more material than is required by the state or federal government. So what particular schools make this mandatory and don't allow minority students to voluntarily enroll in advanced courses? I've never heard of any. To my knowledge, all "advanced" or "college prep" classes are completely voluntary and only consider grades and discipline records IF there is limited space. So I think even the claim itself from the source is absurd, and the way it's written is extremely misleading. If not thrown out, it should all be paraphrased or directly quoted.

But worst of all, is it undeniably implies that black students don't have the same intellectual/academic capacity as whites and this "fact" has caused "segregation". To me it almost reads as "you poor little intellectually-challenged blacks can't get in the advanced classes like the white kids, and we're so sorry", and I'm completely outraged by it.

Statements like these are not much better:

"Evidence shows that traditional psychological and academic assessment is based on skills that are considered important within white, western, middle-class culture, but which may not be salient or valued within African-American culture."

"Evidence shows" is just more "weasel/loaded wording". The entire article is doing this all over the place, and I don't even have time to re-post all of it. Just read the Wikipedia guidelines, go back and read the article and see for yourself.

But as for this statement itself... What is "African-American culture"? This has been something which has always personally outraged me. Why do we have to be excluded, and aren't just part of American culture? We want the same things as anyone else. All of this nonsense suggesting black Americans don't care about Standard English and these suggestions that we're incapable of meeting US academic standards are incredibly insulting as well. The United States' official language is English...it's what's used in the business, science, law, literature, etc. What do they propose to teach black children? A vernacular dialect which varies region to region? Are black children incapable of learning Standard English and important intellectual/social skills? This just sounds like more white activists with the "poor little blacks" mentality, which I find to be the real racist sentiment.

If we're still going to include these claims in the article, it needs MAJOR cleanup. As of now, it might mention a source or make a quote here and there, but then it presents all of this as if it's unquestionably true from empirical evidence (and it's not). And the way so much of this is spun is directly offensive, condescending and degrading to me (and not only me). I have to stop my criticism here, because it's time for me to go. But I shall be back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.20 (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, couldn't agree more! This article is equally insulting to blacks and whites. Apostle12 (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the interest you have shown in the article. I wish I knew of a quick way to address all your complaints, but as you say, this article needs a lot of work. For now I will just say that I edited the line that begins, "Evidence shows . . . ." One of the few things editors here seem to agree on is that weasel words are unacceptable, and attempts to remove them are seldom, if ever, reverted. If you have any other specific suggestions on how we can improve the article, I would like to hear them. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all those objections, i never read it. But the user should actively join the casuse and help to fix these issues. Because naturally when privilege people write about their privilege they always seem to make it OKAY. Almost like slavery was Black peoples fault type thing.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do have another suggestion. The article talks about the study which submitted job resumes using "white-sounding" and "black-sounding" names. This is how it currently reads:

"Other research shows that there is a correlation between a person's name and his or her likelihood of receiving a call back for a job interview. A field experiment in Boston and Chicago found that people with "white-sounding" names are 50% more likely to receive a call back than people with "black-sounding" names, despite equal résumé quality between the two racial groups.[30] White Americans are more likely than black Americans to have their business loan applications approved, even when other factors such as credit records are comparable."

This paragraph starts with more weasel words, "Other research shows...". Again, this will be hard to eliminate, as the entire article is steeped in it -- making it terribly obvious how the author feels about the topic. Then they go on to say "A field experiment in Boston and Chicago found...", more weaseling...

I also don't see how this study is in any way of an academic or scientific nature. What constitutes a "white-sounding" or "black-sounding" name? My name is Daniel, so what color is my skin? I think this is a rather ridiculous notion. How can we even validate the integrity of this study? Long before I'd ever heard of this study, I had heard of others which suggested people with unusual, misspelled, punctuated, compound, "gender-conflicting" or difficult to pronounce names were more likely to be discriminated against when someone only sees their name/gender. I'll dig this up from books and off the net if anyone wants to see it (I think there have been several such studies), but something like this at least needs to be mentioned. I think the people who conducted this study obviously found what they *wanted* to find, as they had an ideological interest/motive in it. I did manage to find "this" through one quick search, and it's the website of Dr. Albert Mehrabian, Ph.D. of UCLA. Maybe we can get our hands on his actual research, which I think could shatter this "hoax-sounding" study. :)

I *think* there is also a statistical correlation between social status and education and names. I'm also willing to look for some reliable sources on this too. Just off the top of my head (my own observation) I can give you several names common to lower-class and poorly educated white families: "Dakota", "Cheyenne", "Jayden", "Lizzy", "Wendy", etc. We are also inclined to think names like: "Winston", "Remington" and "Bentley" are the names of extremely rich and snobby people who speak with British accents (odd, isn't it). When we go to the doctor, we might expect our doctor to be named "Phillip", "John", "Abdul" or "Alpesh" (the last two because of Indian doctor stereotype) but we would probably do a double-take if our doctor was named "Peggy-Sue", "Earl", "Jamal" or "Leotis". Now I know I have to find verifiable and reliable sources to throw anything like this in the article, but I know you guys know what I'm talking about! ;) I'll look for some sources...

Point is, I think this whole study is dubious and has been given undue weight (apart from the atrociously slanted wording it's presented with). If we just think logically here for a second...say you're running a business, and get four resumes. One is from "David", one is from "Erma-May", one is from "Knut" and the other is from "Bon Qui Qui". Which one are you going to call back if their credentials are all relatively equal? Most likely David, and not because of race, but because it's a common, "attractive" name that's easy to pronounce and will be more likely to leave a good impression on customers than "Erma-May", "Knut" or "Bon Qui Qui". I would guess this is almost exactly what the study did using names stereotypically attributed to lower-class blacks, but in ridiculous fashion. Either way, I don't buy into it. There's no way to determine what's a "black-sounding" or "white-sounding" name -- we can only identify names which are highly unusual, difficult to pronounce and possibly playing into a stereotype of lower-class people of a particular race (emphasis being on social class and education level).

We could possibly start off by rewriting the paragraph like this:

"A field experiment in Boston and Chicago (we must say by whom, or it's academically worthless) sent fictitious job résumés to employers using first names they deemed "white-sounding" and "black-sounding" (we need to define what "black/white-sounding is in study context, and maybe give examples). They [again, who?] concluded that when résumés were of equal quality, the applicant with the "white-sounding" name was 50% more likely to receive a call back than their counter-parts with "black-sounding" names. <*we need to present some study/stats here about unusual names like I discussed above so readers can decide for themselves if the culprit was race or just highly unusual/"unattractive" names*> [...]"

The line at the end reading: "White Americans are more likely than black Americans to have their business loan applications approved, even when other factors such as credit records are comparable." doesn't really seem to belong in the paragraph. Maybe somewhere else? I also think that for the sake of impartiality, we need to let readers know that companies like banks and insurance companies use statistics in deciding whether to give someone a loan or insurance policy. Statistics profile different types of candidates based on many factors. Car insurers, for instance, usually charge higher premiums for teenage drivers because they are at the greatest (statistical) risk of accidents. Likewise, black Americans are statistically more likely to default on a loan and typically have lower credit scores, and banks are aware of this. Here are two immediate links you can view which support this, and believe me, there are many more (my family even has poor credit, lol):

http://www.themaroontiger.com/pdf/10_11/MT10.pdf http://www.tgslc.org/pdf/default_lit_review.pdf

Thanks for your time. I think I've given you guys enough headache for now! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.31 (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Some things to consider:

It is probably a lot more efficient to simply fix occurrences of weasel words than to argue at length that they should be removed. Again, it is unlikely that anyone here is going to be contentious about changes of this sort.
Considering that employment discrimination frequently comes up in talks about white privilege and that the Bertrand and Mullainathan study appears in a peer-reviewed journal and has been cited by more than 700 other experts, why should we think it has been given undue weight?
Racism can be institutional or structural, as well as personal, so a policy can be racist even if no one is making a conscious effort to discriminate on the basis of race. Consequently, it is possible for white people to have privilege without meaning to be bigots. So even if the phenomenon of discrimination based on names can be reduced to classism, how would that make it irrelevant to the article?
As Wikipedia editors, we should be deferring to experts, who are usually well aware that correlation does not mean causation and design their studies to be free from the interference of other variables.

Although your words have prompted me to make another edit aimed at removing weasel words, I do not appreciate the strident approach you have taken so far. In my experience the editors who get the most done are not those who give their fellow editors "headache"s but who try to cooperate with them to make a better article.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely, articles like this are likely to cause emotional distress, as the creator of this section admits. We should take a step back and adhere to constructive policies foremost. Some of these phrases do indeed appear to be of limited value in that they simply repeat the general message without providing additional information, and this coupled with loaded terminology makes edits or even removal worthwhile. Also I'd like to suggest that we aim to address the obvious questions about neutrality of the article in a positive manner, similar to how Wikipedia pages dealing with antisemitism provide the reader with information while putting that information in a historical and sociological context.David Kazuto Hallaway (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

New Section needed

There needs to be some kind of acknowledgement of a counterbalance as these theories are not universally taken as gospel. This is a thin wedge that thinks like this. There should be a critique or a section on criticism. I would write it myself if I had the capacity but it should be done by someone with academic knowledge of the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.134.184 (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)