Talk:White privilege/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Criticism?

And no critique of the concept that sounds like a conspiracy theory to a normal person? --197.228.5.205 (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Separate sections for criticism is discouraged by style guides. See Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches_to_presenting_criticism. However, there is White_privilege#Limitations and other critiques throughout the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are, by definition, unproven. White privilege is academically proven to be real. There's no room for fringe critique per WP:UNDUE.Meremermar (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I would dispute that it is academically 'proven' - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Concepts like this are never "academically proven". You can present evidence that supports your hypothesis, but that hypothesis, by definition, is still open to dispute. This is not like a mathematical proof. Arzel (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please use talk pages to discuss improvements to the article not to share opinions on the topic

As someone who subjectively finds this term offensive (I find it literally offends me, and then I'm more offended when people presume to explain why that would be, but enough about me), I see it as conflating two ideas. First, with those social groups that you happen to accept, clearly you can point out statistical advantages and disadvantages of one versus another. So for each race, sex, nationality, etc., if you can identify an "advantage" then you can assess how common it is among each group. For whites in America (or everywhere?) it's thought that there is more advantage on average than other racial groups (I could say that this is obvious, and practically speaking it is, but the truth is that even at its strongest it is only as objective as the social groups themselves and the general concept of life "advantage"). Of course, the most obvious problem with this first part is that it disregards the individual. Second, there's the idea that white skin color gets people certain inherent advantages, no matter how bad they may otherwise have it. But what if they don't care about those things very much at all, or even want this "privilege"? These two ideas are different, but they seem to be kind of lumped together with all of this with the apparent result that all advantages of all white people are relevant, and no white person can claim to be exempt. To say it's all objectively proven, in my view, is to gloss what is obviously at heart subjective and, perhaps intentionally, provocative. I believe the idea that groups are subject to pernicious discrimination, especially some racial minorities, is beyond mainstream criticism. The focus on "white privilege" is different, but not because anyone thinks it can be disproved. There is easily found mainstream criticism of the concept that "white privilege" is an objective, disinterested way to talk about these issues. 24.18.98.101 (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I struggled to follow what seemed like key components of your various points, and as a result can't specifically answer them. That said, the theory clearly upsets you. I suspect that what confuses many similarly upset editors on these talk pages is the perception that WP is somehow an individually willful phenomenon, when it's exactly NOT that. Individuals don't even need to be aware of - much less condone or condemn - WP to either benefit from or suffer its effects. It's a SYSTEMIC phenomenon, that is, embedded within the very structures of culture, itself.

Culture by definition, is a collective - not individual - artifact, so WP theorists aren't calling any individual white person anything, except for maybe blissfully ignorant of their privileges at best & complicit in them at worst. All this to say that one needn't be aware of - much less responsible for - privileges in order to benefit from them, so relax. There is no WP theory corollary or condition that individual white people must be racist for the theory to be generally valid.

Regarding your last statement, can you provide any RS's that cite notable social science scholars who dispute the theory's validity?AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If there's an equal playing field and whites outperform blacks in some areas then maybe it's biological? Why does it always have to be "white privilege"? 174.26.132.162 (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Because race is not biological like that. It's based on skin color in the US. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The IP's post seems to be more appropriate on a forum. It's an argument bout the subject. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

First, "assuming" an equal playing field is among the largest sources of bias in social science research. Second, whenever I read assertions like yours, my first instinct is to check how such phenomenon as "performance" is both measured & defined, since those are the second & third leading sources of research bias. Finally, one has to ask, are the sample groups representative of ALL "whites" and of ALL of a particular minority? How exactly do we define & distinguish the groups? If you think such concepts are simply defined by skin "color," consult a public health researcher, who will quickly tell you that race is a socio-political - NOT biological - construct, and therefore tricky to classify, much less in the binary. Otherwise, DWeller's right, and I'll refrain from further comment. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This is much more than "skin color". Races differ on a very large number of traits such as differences regarding genetic susceptibility to diseases and differences in psychological traits. Races differ in the extent and manner in which the fine subcutaneous muscles of the lips and cheeks have become differentiated from the parent mammalian muscle body; in the chemical composition of hair and of bodily secretions, including milk; in the ways in which different muscles are attached to bones; in the sizes and secretion rates of different endocrines; in certain details of the nervous system, as, for example, how far down in the lumbar vertebrae the neural canal extends; and in the capacity of individuals to tolerate crowding and stress. Yet despite all this, human racial variation is still marked by obvious differences in skeletal morphology, hair and facial features, as well by blood groups and DNA fingerprints. 71.223.124.232 (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The only problem with relying on such "biological" qualities as categorical markers is because they manifest continuously across the genome, co-vary inconsistently, and are as arguably familial & geographic as "racial." In fact, humans invented the concept of "race" in order to explain such visible, inheritable variations among humans. While this sloppy taxonomy enables us to practically define & discriminate among groups of people, biologists simply don't recognize such arbitrary inclusion/exclusion criteria. They're SOCIO-POLITICALLY defined. One could make the same observations you did about certain Semitic or Eastern European facial features, or about the fair hair of Scandinavians, or the ruddy complexions of Brits...at what point do such similarities define those sharing them as a distinct "race"? What's the threshold? Must the relevent features be visible, or also functional? Must they manifest in phenotype, or just genotype? Such questions may CONCERN biological characteristics, but they're SOCIO-POLITICALLY motivated. There's just no biological import to such questions nor to their answers so long as we all can still mate, mix & match. So good try, but your argument is specious. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is ever academically "proven." For a while, phrenology was academically "proven." This article is nonsense, and subsequent efforts to silence discussion prove the limited basis of fact this article rests on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.9.254.171 (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"Proven" is a poor choice of words for a discussion about what should be included in Wikipedia, but I will say that regardless of what definition of proof we use, phrenology was never so. Even at the height of its popularity it had a lot of critics. I digress. The question here is only this: what do reliable sources say about white privilege? See WP:RS for what qualifies as a reliable source -- in this case it's going to be largely academic, but certainly not entirely. And if you look across all of those reliable sources there emerges a pretty clear consensus that there exists some sense of "white privilege," even if not everybody agrees with what that extends to and the extent to which causation can be asserted. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Rhododentrites, the questions of whether white privilege "exists" is ill-posed. It's like asking "do markets exist?" or "does hierarchy exist?" These are useful concepts, and they are both common lingo and academic terms of art. However, they are not things that exist per se, like neodymium, Jupiter, lions, or Chicago exist. Markets, hierarchy and white privilege are descriptive idioms, and their application to a given phenomenon is by necessity a matter of interpretation. Many people, like some of the more frustrated posters above (and sometimes I), sense that the term often conveys unwarranted confidence in certain socio-political models or specific ideological adherence. To me, there's no question that we need an article on white privilege. And the meat of this article is very good. But it needs to be clear—in the introduction and in subsequent exposition—that we are talking about an interpretive gloss, and that the use of the term is frequently controversial, and almost exclusively the province of those who identify with the political left. Introducing the concept without making that clear is irresponsible and clearly NPOV. For example, the article on "proletariat" defines the concept and traces its history in the Roman Empire and Marxism. It goes into great detail about the term's use in Marxism, but it clear throughout the article that it is describing a concept, and how it fits into a paradigm, not unilaterally describing reality with expert language. I believe this article needs to be substantially reworked so that it gives a perspective on both the concept and the term that seem objective both to those who adhere to the sociopolitical left and those who do not. Right now, it clearly favors the former group. I have some idea about how to rewrite the thing, but I'd very much appreciate it if some people responded to my post before I start submitting revisions. 2601:9:4681:100:C175:35DE:5BB:F67B (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is extremely un-encyclopaedic. == I Propose to Merge it with Racism ==

The article fails to give a concise definition of the subject. The article fails to define 'whiteness' . The article fails to define 'privilege'. The article fails to explain causality from 'whiteness' to 'privilege'. The article fails to differentiate race, ethnicity and colour. The article fails to present a coherent survey of the literature surrounding the subject. The article has a subsection titled "Whiteness unspoken". The article fails to differentiate the subject from simple racism.

I, therefore propose, to merge this article with that of racism.

170.70.20.39 (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely opposed. This is a notable concept independent of racism. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain in what sense is the concept different.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.70.20.39 (talk • contribs)

Oppose. Significant concept in its own right. Gamaliel (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain in what sense is it a concept in its own right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.70.20.39 (talk • contribs)

• As it self-evidently does at least most, if not all, of those things listed to some extent and is furthermore (and perhaps more importantly) a longstanding article that has gone through two AfDs with consensus to keep both times, I removed the merge tag from the article per WP:SNOW. That doesn't mean we can't discuss these issues, though. @170.70.20.39: could you pick one or two of your concerns to articulate more clearly how this article could be improved? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Time standing is an attribute the does not, by it self, make it meritorious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.70.20.39 (talk • contribs)

Oppose. Privilege and racism are independent concepts, though one frequently entails the other. I agree that many aspects of the article need revision to make them more appropriate for Wikipedia, but that is not a reason to get rid of the article. If you want to propose a merge, it seems more appropriate to merge it with Privilege (social inequality), and include much of the content as a subsection there. Privilege along racial lines (including white privilege) is not, in my view, a concept independent of other social-grouping privileges, like those along gender or class lines. EvergreenFir, what say you? Acone (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Independently notable with plenty of reliable source monographs and articles speaking specifically to white privilege as distinct from other forms of privilege. (Google Scholar yield 599 with white privilege in the title.)--Carwil (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Carwil, I'm just as happy not to merge. I was responding to the IP's proposal to merge with racism—if we are going to consider a merge, it should be with an article more relevant than racism as the IP suggested. If we aren't, then I'd like to see explicit references to the concept of privilege (right now there isn't even a link in the introduction) and a description of how white privilege is distinct from other forms. While there is much to say about white privilege specifically, it is nonetheless a form of privilege, and it is deeply related to other forms of social privilege. The first paragraph of the introduction currently reads as an introduction to the concept of social privilege generally, and says almost nothing about how white privilege differs from other forms. The articles breast cancer and cancer handle this relationship well, I think. The former does not attempt to introduce the reader to cancer; it outlines facts specific to breast cancer. That's how I'd like the first paragraph to be. Thoughts? Acone (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Theory

White Privilege is a Theory, not simply a term. It is also a racist theory singling out a specific race for scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.16.125 (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This critical claim would need sources, which I think could be found and probably should have a place in the article. Jojalozzo 17:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the IP's first sentence, and the article should reflect this; however, the second asserts a criticism of the theory that I think the article already covers in due weight to RS on the subject. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a racist theory. Scholars generally agree that racism targets an oppressed minority group.Meremermar (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Meremermar. That said, I do think the first sentence would read better if it said, "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a THEORETICAL term for societal privileges that benefit white people beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances." I only suggest this because, in fact, there's such robust evidence for the existence of white privilege, and its manifestations are so insidiously widespread, that WP isn't just a "word" or "concept" or "term" or "slang" or even "hypothesis," but a veritable, well-developed, self-consistent social science theory, with all the weight & authority that "theory" implies among thoughtful people. Because no sociologist, social psychologist, or anthropologist that I can find anyway disputes the existence of WP within many Western societies, I think adding the term "theoretical" better reflects the considerable volume & quality of thought supporting it, while preparing readers to anticipate aspects of WP that are complex & not immediately self-evident. It probably depends upon readers' personal epistemology, but to me anyway, adding the term "theoretical" ADDS weight to the term, rather than vitiating it. My 2 cents anyway. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

White privilege is certainly not empirically proven. There are other hypotheses for racial disparities. Therefore, the first sentence of the entry should reflect that this idea is nothing more than an theory. To maintain objectivity at all times on Wikipedia we need to distinguish between scientific truths and theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.7.36.191 (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"The term white privilege (or white skin privilege) is an alleged phenomenon..." makes little sense. Terms aren't alleged phenomena. "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges..." is correct as that's how the term is used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

To IP 209: The scientific community expresses "truths" in terms of theories; any distinctions between "theory" and "truth" exist only in your misunderstanding of both. 166.216.165.45 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

IP166, I think this comment is excessively derisive. Please observe WP:NPA. This topic is clearly controversial—all the more reason to address our differences with respect. As to your point, theories can be true or false, or even have no particular truth value. The theory of plate tectonics is widely accepted as true; the theory of induced demand for traffic has diverse assessment; the aether theories are widely rejected. Other theories like number theory or quantum theory are not specific statements, so the can be neither true nor false; they simply denote a collection of related ideas. IP209 correctly implies that the role of white privilege is frequently disputed among experts. However, IP209 is incorrect in implying the word theory should make us take white privilege less seriously. Probably IP209 should have used the word "hypothesis" to convey their point. But in any case, let's treat each other respectfully. Acone (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Credibility of McIntosh as a defining source

The point of McIntosh's piece is not to explain the concept of white privilege, but to advocate for its acceptance. While she is a qualified academic, the piece cited is not itself academic. The piece makes broad, uncited claims about white people's experience, phrased in the first person, and apparently deduced from the author's personal experience and her interpretations of them. I do not object to its inclusion in the article—obviously the piece is hugely influential, and so it's notable in it's own right. But it should be noted as a perspective, not an authoritative judgment. Certainly I think relying on it as the foremost source in the introduction and definition of the concept is inapt and violates WP:SOAP. I think the points made in Wikipedia:Advocacy_articles and Wikipedia:Advocacy apply. I propose introducing the concept using other sources in the article below. I also think the introduction should introduce the concept's historical development. I'm happy to work on this, but I want to get perspectives here before I put in considerable work. I tagged the article with {{unreliable sources}}, but this was reverted pending discussion here. Acone (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you've got the point of McIntosh's piece exactly backwards. It's to explain the concept of white privilege to those otherwise oblivious to it. And please note the multitude of academic sources that refer to it in note 1. This is not an unreliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you dispute that it "makes broad, uncited claims about white people's experience, phrased in the first person, and apparently deduced from the author's personal experience and her interpretations of them?"Acone (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No, but the only content that may require another source is this: "These privileges are unearned and are distributed based on values of the dominant group, which in the west is white people." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I actually think that whole sentence needs to go. To the extent the statement is true, it suitable for inclusion in a definition of social privilege. To state that the privileges are "unearned" in this context connotes a normative judgment on those privileges. If we want to define white privilege as such, it needs to be clear that that's a definition, not a judgment on some already-established set of privileges. The last clause "which in the west is white people," seems wholly inappropriate for wikipedia. Yes, I agree that white people are dominant in many important senses—experts and the bulk of the population seem to agree on that point—but the statement is vague and editorial. Dominance takes many forms, and many groups are dominant among many axes. The dominance of white people is also not a specifically western phenomenon. To state in such broad terms that white people are the dominant group in the west expresses a sentiment or an interpretive gloss, and I think it does little to inform the reader about what white privilege is, and reduces the credibility of the article overall. I'd like to delete that whole sentence. Acone (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no issues with deleting that sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I also dispute that I've got McIntosh's piece backwards, though I'm content to agree to disagree on that. Though McIntosh is an academic, she is primarily notable as an political activist and public speaker (see Peggy_McIntosh), and it was in that context she wrote the piece. The fact that many other credible sources cite it makes it notable, but it does not itself prove that the piece is itself authoritative. If I write an editorial on how awful Comcast is, then an expert in telecommunications distills some of my writing into expert judgment and cites me, that does not make my original editorial authoritative. Even if my points are subsequently deemed as valid, the fact that I wrote them in an editorial context makes them less suitable (I would argue wholly unsuitable) as a central source on Comcast. My editorial may be noted for its perspective or historical significance, but not as authority. Acone (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No evidence for claim about IRS tax audits

EvergreenFir reverted an edit I made removing McIntosh's. I believe this reversion to be inappropriate and against the intent behind semi-protection: Wikipedia:Pending_changes#Reviewing_pending_edits. The point of semi-protection is not to entitle rollbackers to privilege their editorial judgment over others. It is to protect from edits that plainly violate policy, are in bad faith, are vandalism, concern the biography of a living person, have problems regarding copyright, etc. So I'd ask you, EvergreenFir and NeilN, not to good faith rollback edits until you have discussed them on the talk page. The eagerness with which my edits have so far been rolled back effectively forces me to ask permission or write a longish essay just to make minor, and in my view not controversial, edits. I get the sense from the talk page archives I am not the first editor to sense that, and that the article has suffered significantly as a result. So yeah, please ease up on the red pen.

The language regarding tax audits clearly implied expert judgment. The fact that the article is important affords that opinion no particular weight. Its inclusion here would lead a trusting reader to believe that McIntosh's assessment was based in anything other that intuition or speculation, as it appears to be. In fact, the claim appears to be wholly false, and I see no evidence that any expertise or research went into the claim. The IRS and specifically its auditing behavior is studied by a variety of experts in many fields. As far as I can tell, not one of those experts has found any recent routine evidence of discrimination by the IRS. I was able to find a claim of racial discrimination against IRS office in Milwaukee—which related only to employment not tax audits, and appears to have been throughly addressed. In fact, a federal court against the IRS regarding its favorable treatment of non-whites.

McIntosh's intuitions about the IRS have no more weight than anyone else's. The fact that they were claimed in a prominent article is not itself important. Not every statement made in a prominent article is noteworthy. It would be arguably noteworthy if others had picked up if the question of racial discrimination of IRS audits and cited McIntosh as an authority. As far as I can find on Google Scholar, no one has done that. McIntosh cites no sources for the claim, and no one I can find on Google Scholar cites the claim.

The claim is especially problematic in context. The other sections primarily concern expert research into economic facts regarding wealth inequality. The other references in the section are to authoritative data sources peer-reviewed academic articles. Including McIntosh's surmise in that context is wholly misleading, as it improperly associates racial discrimination in IRS audits—an idea that is neither true nor widely discussed—with credible experts on wealth inequality.

It is sufficiently obvious from this section that white privilege extends to wealth inequality. It does not need to be bolstered by a speculative and false claim, especially given the overall contention surrounding the issue. I'm open to arguments to the contrary, but as it stands, I do not see any. And again, please, rollbackers, comply with the intent behind the pending changes policy. Acone (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the content (yet) but semi-protection and rollback are irrelevant. Semi-protection stops IP's and brand new editors from editing and rollback was not used. Anyone is perfectly entitled to revert a change they disagree with. You can just as easily propose changes here first if you want but I'm definitely not suggesting you have to do that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Holy wall of text, Batman! You removed the text because you said it wasn't true. See WP:TRUTH. MacIntosh's opinion on this topic is notable as she's an original author on the topic and the sentence makes it clear the statement is her's alone. But if you want to provide RS that disagree with her assessment, feel free to add them. Your analysis is WP:OR though. We need to find a source that, while discussing White privilege, disagrees with MacIntosh.

Also, though you don't have a ton of edits, you've been on Wikipedia a while. I'm going to assume you are unfamiliar with some of the way rollback and reviewer works. I undid your edit, I didn't roll it back. The edit summary of a rollback looks different and provides no custom explanation. You are assuming bad faith in fellow editors, and that's not cool. I'll send you a Tea House invite in case you have further questions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith. I don't think you are intentionally doing anything wrong. I do think you are overzealously my reverting edits without thoughtful consideration, that in doing so you are effectively establishing a sort of tacit silencing, and that the article has suffered as a result. Saying I have a problem with your behavior, or that I do not agree with your judgment, is not the same thing as assuming bad faith. This topic is obviously ideologically sensitive, and your eager reversion and what I parse to be a smug tone is, in my estimation, fueling the fire. I was drawn here because someone asked me to explain white privilege, I thought about directing them here, and decided the article was in such shoddy shape that it was more likely to inflame the guy and discredit the whole than teach him anything. I also think the article is sufficiently bad as to discredit wikipedia generally. So I decided to improve it. In the course of doing so, my experience has so far been that my edits are reverted in what I sense to be a rather cavalier and unaccountable fashion, which goads me into an edit war and discourages me from putting work into the article. I personally would not revert someone else's edits without talking to them first, if I sensed they had put some thought into the matter, as I hope you do of me. If that is not your habit, I would invite you to consider that maybe it should be. This is not just a matter of Wikipedia culture, policy or technicality, with which you rightly guess I am unfamiliar. It is a matter of respect for diverse viewpoints and respect for others work.

For reasons I've stated, and after reading that guideline, I disagree that her opinion on this topic is notable. Her comments on anything related to white privilege are not ex officio notable because they were made in a prominent piece. I can find no sources disagreeing with McIntosh because no one has substantially investigated the claim. The fact that no one credible has even bothered investigating the claim indicates precisely that it is not notable. Yes, to some extent I did original research in the talk page, but only to show that the claim is so readily verifiable as baseless as to indicate that McIntosh was not applying expert judgment. That is relevant and fair of me to point out. McIntosh's view is a fringe theory at best, and probably just an off-the-cuff remark. I maintain that including the claim here is not only improper, but misleading and discrediting. Again, we do not need false, unsourced, non-expert judgments to explain how wealth relates to white privilege, and I do not think you've made a case otherwise.

@EvergreenFir:. I'm not sure what to do with the Teahouse invite. I went there and made a profile. Did you mean I should direct further questions at you specifically using the Teahouse? That I should go to the Teahouse to learn more about a particular topic? I'm happy to do either. Or to just read documents on Wikipedia you think I should read, your call. Acone (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Capitalismojo reverted per WP:UNDUE. Not sure I agree, but I'm not gonna fight it. As for the tea house, I'll comment on your user talk page. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You must not accept this behaviour if your sentence is covered by the source. Its not that you have to agree with the things said here. I know him from deleting several blocks partly existing for years already at Daniele Ganser and Gladio subjects, like "delete first challenge later".Spearmind (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

SSCI3023

I am going to be working on this article to help improve the lacking areas. Ashton.Ramsingh (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

SSC2831

I am looking at edits on this page.

Jessiealexia (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent educational assignment edits

@Houda.kanoun, Jessiealexia, KatelynMarieMeier, and AOlivar1122: Can all of you please read WP:TONE? This is an encyclopedia, not a place for formal essay writing or a study paper where you're trying to prove your thesis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, neutrality is off

This totally violates the NPOV standards for Wikipedia. At least there needs to be more on how many disagree with this theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.131.17.84 (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Why was this removed? The editor who removed it did not comment.

The following was recently removed from the article:

• Right to life

• Conservatives, who often deny the existence of white privilege, make an exception by pointing out that in 2004, the rates of abortion by ethnicity in the U.S. were 50 abortions per 1,000 black women, 28 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women, and 11 abortions per 1,000 white women.

The editor who removed the content did not explain why they removed it.

71.182.242.14 (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not the editor who removed your contribution to the article, but it was probably removed because it's impermissible original research. The source says that abortion rates are down, but it doesn't say anything about conservatives and white privilege—which is what the sentence you're citing it to support is about. In order for your proposed change to "stick", you would need a source that specifically addresses all three: conservatives, white privilege, and abortion rates. I hope that helps. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Request for this to be labelled as a "sociological theory."

This article has very poor taste in neutrality in terms of race. I feel this entire article edges on a conspiracy theory. I know plenty of white people who can't get a job even at McDonald's and plenty of colored people who could get a job if they asked the right people thus making this entire article blow up like a firecracker. This entire article lacks the merit and credibility Wikipedia is supposed to possess as opposed to Metapedia or Conservapedia. It is a fringe theory in its entirety and it cannot be proven like say, the Pythagorean Theorem or Gravity. It does a complete disservice to colored people by giving them a feel good article and robbing them of any consequences from their choices, similar to how a parent tells their child the Bogeyman exists in order to pacify them into following orders, as opposed to punishing them and making them learn from their actions. This is not a professional article whatsoever.

Define "whiteness." Are Latinos or Arabs white? They have similar skull/bone structure and their DNA is closer to Europeans then say, a black or Asian person. Their IQ is around the same as European whites too. Does that make them "white" as well?

Define "privilege." Is it a secret bank account waiting for every white person in Europe and America because of their skin color? Or are they more likely to be hired at establishments then blacks or Asians? The article does not define this in depth, it simply touches on it briefly and then goes on to divide race relations further in the West.

Contrast "societal privileges" from "individual privileges" or "communal privileges." Does this mean because "white privilege" exists, colored people are unable to become say, doctors or lawyers? If not, why is that? Is it possible that communities of say, white people and black people have different goals? A black person wants to become a scientist. A white person wants to as well. Does that mean the white person is racist because he has this "privilege" and he is competing with a black person in the job market? If so, why?

Define "speaking freely," as it is quoted in the article. There are many laws in Europe where white people are refrained from speaking about someone of another ethnicity sourly simply on the basis of skin color and "privilege," thus making the quoted passage moot.

Do all white people have a superiority complex, as it is stated in the article? Have you met all white people? If so, can you list their names?

Define "whiteness studies." Who has done these studies? Are they done with or without bias? What university do they belong to? If not, what size basement do they have?

These are all questions that need to be answered, all statements that need to be defined, WITHOUT BIAS, because from my angle, it looks like a classic example of mass character assassination of an entire peoples. We must be mindful that Hitler did some of these very same things before he put Jews, Slavs, Poles, and Romanians into a big gas chamber. Be careful of the steps you take. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.205.51.172 (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You may misunderstand the theory? From my understanding the term 'white' was invented in the 1600s by our rulers, and was associated with a system of class separation. A main proponent of the theory (if not the founder) is "white" (Allen, writing from the 60's). I understand some of your sentiment, however this is a complex subject. I can agree though that the article makes the study more complex. 74.38.14.239 (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he has misunderstood anything, he asks some extremely pertinent questions which are rarely answered by sociologists. Can you actually trace the etymology of "white race" to 17th century nobles? Because I'm kind of certain they never needed ideas of race or ethnicity to define their superiority: they controlled the armies. I disagree that this is a complex subject and otherwise I feel this subject has been made artificially complex by those who do not welcome dialogue and argument and instead opt for a "critical theory" style of literature in which the goal is to convince certain people that they are worse off than they are to "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them." This is subversive and is actually on the same staircase as inciting violence and hate speech. In the end, this isn't even sociology, its Marxism posing as academia.

121.210.198.225 (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree While historical mention is given to The New Left the article gives no mention to the New Left's Marxist ideologue, Herbert Marcuse, of the Frankfurt School, and his fundamental thesis of Critical Theory. Critical Theory seeks to recruit society's disaffected by employing storytelling. and revisionism to highlight social injustices - for the purpose of appealing to one's sense of empathy. Nor is there mention of Harvard Law Professor, Derrick Bell, as a pioneer of Critical Theory as it is applied to race or Critical Race Theory. There is only a subheading on Critical Race Theory: whose central thesis of social injustice is white privilege or white supremacy. Appropriately, "white privilege" belongs as a subheading to Critical Race Theory and I think that the article downplays this somewhat.

Brett Gasper (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Replying to Brett Gasper only: This is an interesting effort at WP:COATRACKing the article for reasons that are unclear to me. Marcuse, to the best of my knowledge never used the phrase white privilege, and Bell's contributions to CRT are hardly centered on white privilege either. You can get a not entirely complementary history of WP's intellectual pedigree from White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism (p. 22-25). Peggy McIntosh, Ruth Frankenburg, David Roediger, and Toni Morrison loom as important early figures. Writings by W.E.B. DuBois ("The Souls of White Folk") and James Baldwin are important forerunners. CRT's intersection with this really is marked by Cheryl Harris' 1993 article "Whiteness as Property," which should be here. But as this little tour suggests, white privilege was a subject in sociology (Frankenburg, DuBois), feminism (McIntosh, Frankenburg), history (Roediger), and literary studies (Morrison) independently of CRT.--Carwil (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The unsigned comments above are purely "I don't like it" concerns. The scholarship, and its sources are clearly laid out (no basements needed), although there is room for improvement in the article. The definition of privilege is pretty clearly discussed here, and whiteness is a social category whose boundaries are both policed and changed over time, as one can tell from this and linked pages.--Carwil (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

References

NPOV

I agree with two other commenters above me. This article is highly biased, and essentially portrays white people as evil. This article should contain counterarguments to "white privilege." Don'tTreadOnMe177617761776 (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Don'tTreadOnMe177617761776

Could you provide specific instances or examples in which white people are portrayed as evil? Also, if you don't see any arguments against the concept of white privilege in the article, I don't think you're looking very hard. Try searching for the words "rejects" and "critiques", for starters. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Though it doesn't say it plain, it does suggest that most of white people are criminals having intent to damage blacks' well-being. Whereas the only true privilege is to inherit better genes from parents. The article doesn't even mention the opinion that the concept is just giant fraud. You liars have been in power for decades, black-white difference is genetic and you can't remove it with AA or other policies. When Asian-Americans earn more than white Americans, it's OK. When Jewish Americans earn more than white non-Jewish Americans, it is OK. White Americans earn more than Black Americans, it is "Evidence" of something bad and measures must be taken... I wasn't born in the US but in Russia. There exists larger difference in income between Russians and African Americans that there is between white Americans and African Americans! These African Americans have access to large wellfare that I am not entitled to, it's US-born privilege, only they have to do is to avoid getting in prison, and even if Blacks get sentenced, it's not their fault but it's these evil racists didn't raise them properly... Alliumnsk (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated to the RfC

This is unrelated to the RfC, but there is a wiki syntax error of some sort that is causing an "Invalid <ref> tag" error message to display in the Reference section. Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I have could correct this.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the error, but because this article is subject to pending changes and I'm not a registered editor, my edit needs to be reviewed by an autoconfirmed editor. 66.87.115.193 (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Shelby Steele

Can someone explain why this edit was reverted? The statement that Steele is a "Conservative scholar and opponent of affirmative action programs" is not supported by the ABC news article, so in the version that Pleonic reverted to this statement is entirely unsourced. Steele is a living person, so asserting this about him without a source is a BLP violation. For the article to make a connection between his criticism of White Privilege and his opposition to affirmative action, it also must be cited to a source making that connection. If no source connects those two things, for us to connect them ourselves is exactly the sort of thing that WP:SYNTHESIS tells us to avoid. 103.47.145.177 (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition

Shelby Steele should be identified. His Wikipedia page identifies him as a "a self-described 'black conservative'." who "opposes policies such as affirmative action." Likewise his professional profile page has him writing a first-person essay on "What does a conservative believe?"--Carwil (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This is more than mere juxtaposition. The statement in the article is insinuating that Steele disagrees with White Privilege because he's a conservative, and that maybe if he wasn't a conservative and didn't oppose affirmative action, he might not disagree with White Privilege either.

If you can't see the insinuation here, imagine if one of the people arguing for the existence of White Privilege were introduced as a "liberal who supports racial preferences in college admissions". Assume it's an exactly equivalent case, where that information about the person is verifiable, but is not mentioned in the source discussing their viewpoint about White Privilege. Would you approve of including details like that about all of the people arguing in favor of White Privilege, provided we can find reliable sources discussing their viewpoints in these other areas?

If you think that information should not be removed in Shelby's case, then similar details probably should be added about most of the liberal commentators, for the sake of consistency. 103.47.145.167 (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Shelby Steele puts his critique of White Privilege in a chapter-long critique of liberalism and political correctness, the opening chapter of his most recent book Shame: How America's Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country, which also situates him as a conservative. The opening sentence, "Not long ago I was the lone conservative at a panel discussion on race and politics…" On the second page, a summary of his views on affirmative action. If you'd like, we can cite that and avoid your synth concerns.--Carwil (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better to cite that book instead. Rather than just labeling him as an "affirmative action opponent", I also think we should briefly summarize his book's argument against affirmative action. If his views on affirmative action are relevant enough to be mentioned at all, they should also be relevant enough for us to explain how they relate to his views on White Privilege. 103.47.145.175 (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Carwil: So, are you going to make the change we've agreed on? I don't own a copy of Steele's book, so it would be more difficult for me to make the change than for you to do it. (Also, the article has pending changes enabled, so I can't make any edit unless a registered user approves it.) 103.47.145.162 (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Steele's argument in Shame is an argument against liberalism, which I've summarized (as it relates to White Privilege) in the lead. In this section (on Education), we have Steele as a critic of the material on white privilege in education. His argument on affirmative action could plausibly contribute to articles on that topic, but don't really belong here. I will see what I can add elsewhere in this article, but won't have time for a couple weeks.--Carwil (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on White privilege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130907064328/http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/Separate&Unequal.FR.pdf to http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/Separate&Unequal.FR.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Macklemore and Ryan Lewis' song White Privilege II

The hip hop duo released a single called White Privilege II (and discussing Black Lives Matter) on January 21. I feel this is very relevant for the article and probably why the article has been getting so much traffic lately. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Neutrality of the first paragraph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The first paragraph of the lede is written under the assumption that White Privilege definitely exists. Over the past two years, several editors have tried to modify it to say that White Privilege is a concept derived from Critical Race Theory, and is not widely accepted in all fields, but these changes always have been reverted. Four examples are [1], [2], [3], and [4]. I think this question should have input from the wider community: should the first paragraph be written in a way that says White Privilege definitely exists, or should it be qualified to indicate that not all fields accept the concept? 103.47.145.174 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia presents the concept as it is commonly defined by reliable sources. Saying what the concept is does not mean Wikipedia says it's real or correct, just that this is what others say about it. See [{WP:TRUTH]] for a good essay on the matter. That said, we did try to hash this out in the past: Talk:White_privilege/Archive_7#Theory_in_lede. I don't mind "theory" in the lead, but the RFC misstates the issue when it refers to how widely accepted it concept is and that Wikipedia is claiming it to be true. Given that the third paragraph of the lead is about the controversy of the concept, I think it's balanced enough and the issue raised in the RFC is a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia's voice and role are. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that defining White Privilege as "societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances" amounts to a pretty unequivocal statement that White people actually do experience these benefits when social and economic factors are adjusted for. I'm aware this has been discussed before, but the earlier discussion did not receive much outside attention. Let's see what uninvolved editors commenting in the RFC have to say. 103.47.145.174 (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article (as of 10:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)) certainly does appear to discuss "White privilege" as though it were an undeniable fact rather than a theory or opinion. I believe that first sentence needs to incorporate a word or two such as "theory," or "alleged, or "purported," or "believed by some" in order to present it in a neutral manner as called for by WP:NPOV.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't use "alleged" or "purported". See WP:ALLEGED. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

[inserted 09:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)]
Very well; let me modify my choice of words. I think a more neutral way to phrase the opening sentence would be:

• "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term used by some to suggest that there are societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances."

Richard27182 (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That still falls under WP:ALLEGED. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

With respect, Richard, I think you can see that that still fails to comply with WP:ALLEGED. Your trying to game the system is counterproductive here. Graham (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

[inserted 09:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)]

@EvergreenFir:  @Graham11:
With all due respect to both of you, I see no way that my revision in any way "games the system."  I have also reread WP:ALLEGED and I honestly see no violation.  I sincerely invite either or both of you to give me a specific written example of how I could have rewritten the sentence to represent it as opinion rather than absolute fact, without what you would consider running afoul of WP:ALLEGED or "gaming the system."
Richard27182 (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you're trying to show it as opinion. It's not. It's a social science theory. We don't treat similar topics in this manner. Again, saying something in Wikipedia's voice does not mean it's true or fact. It's a representation of how the topic or concept is represented and discussed by other sources. While I don't think you're trying to game the system, this is becoming tendentious. I'm fine with saying "theory" in the lead. I was fine with the older wording. But repeated attempts to make this "an opinion" are not okay. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The entire article, even the "criticism" section is pure propaganda and has no place in Wikipedia. Alliumnsk (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's a majority view of both reliable sources on the topic and, for what it's worth, possibly of the general public in the United States. See this text in the article:

According to Ella L. J. Edmondson Bell and Stella M. Nkomo "most scholars of race relations embrace the use of [the concept] white privilege".[21] Sociologists in the American Mosaic Project report widespread belief in the United States that "prejudice and discrimination [in favor of whites] create a form of white privilege." According to their 2003 poll this view was affirmed by 59% of white respondents, 83% of Blacks, and 84% of Hispanics.[22]

The statistics you linked is not even a peer-reviewed article. It's a poll (random? convenience sample?) asking LOADED QUESTIONS which ask first about prejudice and discrimination (which are real things) and pushes people to opinion pollsters want to, it's a good example how to do frauds... Alliumnsk (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

To deepen the question, you can look at disciplinary statements from the American Sociological Association:

"Race serves as a basis for the distribution of social privileges and resources." (2003)[5]

…and the American Anthropological Association:

"The 'racial' worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth." (1998) [6]

In short, reliable sources say white privilege exists, and our task is not to append "so-called" to such claims, but to attribute the claims, while also present criticism of them.--Carwil (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You could make that argument about many different viewpoints. I'll quote what reliable sources in the field of personnel psychology say about race differences in job performance.

• Roth et al. 2003: "For Black–White comparisons, the overall results show a standardized ethnic group difference for job performance ratings of approximately one third of a standard deviation (when corrected for criterion reliability), and this is quite similar to Kraiger and Ford (1985)."

• McKay & McDaniel 2006: "Thus far, researchers know that, on average, Whites generally are judged to perform better on the job than their Black counterparts (Chung-Yan & Cronshaw, 2002; J. K. Ford, Kraiger, & Schechtman, 1986; Hauenstein, Sinclair, Robson, Quintella, & Donovan, 2003; Kraiger & Ford, 1985; Roth et al., 2003)."

• And later in the McKay paper: "Across criterion categories, Black–White mean differences in work performance are evident. For job performance, the differences are slightly more than one fourth of a standard deviation in magnitude, favoring Whites."

Note that neither of these sources discuss White Privilege as a possible explanation for race differences in job performance. They discuss many other possible explanations, but not that one. Also note that these papers are not single studies or primary sources; both of them are literature reviews. In the field of personnel psychology, every major literature review that's examined race and job performance has reached conclusions similar to these.

• The Comprehensive Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology (2005) goes even further. This chapter of the book states unequivocally that race differences in academic performance reflect differences in IQ (which could be caused by either genetics or environment). While the Roth and McKay papers are major literature reviews in the field of personnel psychology, this book is a major secondary source in the field of educational psychology.

I'm not suggesting the article actually should cite these sources. They don't directly discuss White Privilege (they completely ignore it as a potential explanation), so citing them in this article would possibly be original synthesis. I'm bringing them up to demonstrate that what you call the "majority view" is completely different depending on what field of research you're looking at. Given that the majority of reliable sources in other fields have reached different conclusions about the causes of racial inequalities, why do you think race relations in particular should have its conclusions presented as fact? 103.47.145.155 (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Citing secondary sources and position statements by major academic bodies seems be a good way of establishing a majority view though... or at least a mainstream one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What rot! This isn't your WP:SOAPBOX, it's supposed to be a discussion about the Wikipedia article about white privilege. The material you're quoting has no more relevance to this discussion than the fact that today's New York Times didn't mention white privilege. It's interesting trivia, but it has no bearing on this RfC.

If the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that deal with the relevant subject matter discuss white privilege as a real thing, and by all accounts they do, so should this article. If you don't agree, bring reliable sources of your own that deal with the relevant subject matter -- not some b.s. you pull out of your ass. 66.87.114.206 (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you define what sources are "relevant"? If the answer is that sources are only relevant if they use the term "White Privilege", or an equivalent term, then that's obviously going to skew the results towards sources that argue it exists. Usually, when a source takes the perspective that racial inequalities are due to something other than White Privilege (such as culture or IQ), it doesn't specifically say that white Privilege isn't the explanation. It just says that the inequalities are caused by some other factor or factors, as these sources do.

The point is that if one examines all of the sources (in many fields) that discuss the racial inequalities White Privilege is meant to explain, one finds that White Privilege is not by any means the only explanation offered for them. In order to say that the majority of relevant sources agree White Privilege is the cause, you have to define "relevant" in a way that specifically excludes all of the sources and fields of study that present alternative explanations. 103.47.145.136 (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The McKay paper also says that racial bias on the part of supervisors is one of the likely reasons why African-American employees are rated less favorably than white employees. Getting a slightly higher subjective performance rating from your boss, because of your boss' racial bias in favor of whites, is not proof that white people receive no benefit from being white. Also, neither "IQ" nor "intelligence" appears anywhere in the paper. (The "cognitive criteria" that it discusses is described in the paper as "training and job knowledge", which is very different from general intelligence.)

According to nearly all experts, "white privilege" definitely exists. Those that disagree form a small minority. (The critics often don't disagree with the idea that it's easier to be a white American than to be any other race; they disagree about things like whether "privilege" is the right way to describe the phenomenon or how to disentangle racial bias from class bias in a society that previously used socioeconomic means as a deliberate tool to suppress the economic prospects of former slaves.) Therefore, this article should treat it as a thing that definitely exists.

This is a bit of a tangent, but it might help: Privilege isn't only about race. You can be "privileged" in terms of race and "underprivileged" on every other scale: sex, money, age, education, health and disability, family situation, physical attractiveness, etc. You can have "white privilege" without having any other privilege or advantage at all, just like you can be non-white and have all the other privileges or advantages. "White privilege" does not mean that all whites are privileged in every way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, when I mentioned IQ I was referring to the 2005 book chapter I linked to, not to the two papers. And if you read the 2003 Roth paper, it emphasizes that race differences in job performance actually are somewhat larger when the performance measures are objective rather than subjective. Subjective measures evidently diminish the size of the performance gap, not increase it - in other words, this evidence suggests that subjective measures benefit blacks instead of whites.

In his reply above, EvergreenFir said that he wouldn't mind including the word "theory" in the lede. Would you object to that? The word "theory" does not necessarily mean a concept isn't widely-accepted. For example, that term is used in the first sentence of the General relativity article. (That article is a FA, so I am assuming that it complies with NPOV.) 103.47.145.175 (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see where exactly "theory" goes in the lead. While I'm not opposed to its use, it would mean the same thing as "academic perspectives." For example, we could have "critical race theory, whiteness studies, the sociology of racial stratification, and other academic fields use the concept of white privilege" but it would be obtuse to write "critical race theory, whiteness studies theories, the sociological theory of racial stratification, all use the theory of white privilege."

If "theory" is designed to leave room for doubt, we have this problem: there's really no doubt about the past existence of white privilege. If white privilege is the set of "societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances," essentially no one believes that this has always been an empty set. One can simply list things that were once exclusively granted to whites, such as (in the United States:) the right to become a naturalized citizen, the right to vote (in many states), freedom from hereditary enslavement, etc. The idea that WP never existed is WP:FRINGE.

What is actually subject to widespread public dispute is the continuation of white privilege beyond the de jure legal equality obtained in the mid-20th century (late 20th century for South Africa). That is, some argue that the set of societal privileges held by whites is now an empty set. This kind of factual disagreement is not well represented in the "critics" paragraph in the lead, and probably deserves a nod there. And perhaps there is also dispute as to whether this continuing set of social advantages form a coherent entity, something currently well-addressed in the lead.

Explain to me how "theory" would be inserted and how it would help.--Carwil (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm suggesting something along the lines of the 2013 version of the lede, although we don't have to follow it exactly. Something like this: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a sociological theory that is commonly used to help explain certain ethnicity-based inequalities. The term denotes both obvious and less obvious passive advantages that white persons may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice."

If that isn't acceptable to you, I'm open to suggestions on how to modify it.

I also agree that the "critics" paragraph should include a mention of the disagreement over whether White Privilege still exists in the Western world in the 21st century. I would suggest citing Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Race for the perspective that White Privilege no longer exists (although it obviously existed in the past). I'm a little surprised that Sowell is cited nowhere in this article, as he's one of the more prominent critics of the idea that White Privilege still exists. If you agree with the suggestion to cite Sowell in the lede, I can make a suggestion for that wording also. 103.47.145.172 (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The old version seems unnecessarily wordy and complex. It fails to say what "white privilege" means. Which need not imply that there's a lot of it around in the present. Compare Indenture#Historical usage: "An indenture is a legal contract between two parties, particularly for indentured labour…"

Also "is a theory" doesn't work so well, since WP is a term that is used within multiple theories for explaining racial inequality (if you want to know what I mean by that, skim p. 53-59 here: []https://books.google.com/books?id=T7LcAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA53&dq=%22class+paradigm+of+race%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd1IzQ8-XJAhUG7D4KHb0IAvIQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22class%20paradigm%20of%20race%22&f=false. Both "is a term" (currently in the article), "is a concept" just work better. None of these three things are definitive for truth value, but I suspect you feel like "theory" suggests "unproven theory," whereas "term" and "concept" don't. I'm not sure I know how to help that.

I'm unequivocally opposed to removing "societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances." from the lead. But if you want to preface it with "those" or "the set of," that's okay with me.--Carwil (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, how about this: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a concept derived from critical race theory, denoting a set of societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances." In this case, the term "theory" is being used just in reference to CRT, and it uses the phrase that you say it's important to include.

Also, would you accept citing Sowell in the "criticism" paragraph? 103.47.145.135 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Per the article, the concept emerges from the New Left in the 1960s and 1970s, via Allen's use of "white skin privilege," but derives from critical writing by people of color, notably (here) W.E.B. Du Bois. This is well before critical race theory. See this survey of pre-1967 sources using "white privilege" in Google Books: Claude McKay in 1937, frequent use in the magazine Black World/Negro Digest, numerous 1960Ss studies on South Africa and European colonies in Africa.

I tried but failed to find an example of Sowell saying white privilege no longer exists, but I'm happy for you to add one.

Lastly, let's heed this advice from WP:LEADSENTENCE: "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition." "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."--Carwil (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, Sowell criticizes the idea that White Privilege still exists in his book Intellectuals and Race. In that book, he argues that present-day racial inequalities are the results of geographic differences in the areas where ethnic groups originated, and their long-term effects on each group's culture. He also argues that it's harmful for intellectuals to blame present-day inequalities on the more successful group, because that inhibits the less successful group's opportunities to improve their own prospects.

Here's another idea for the first sentence: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is sociological concept denoting a set of societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances." If you're opposed to removing everything after "societal privileges", I doubt I could make it much shorter than this. 103.47.145.179 (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

 As long as the sentence is written in such a way that it implies that such a "benefit" definitely does exist, it will be seen as taking sides on a controversial issue.  The word "benefit" should be used in a context where it is clear that the "benefit" is suggested or proposed or theorized or believed by some; not necessarily actually using any of those terms, but at least carrying the implication of one of those terms.
 Concerning reliable sources, there is an inherent bias built into this whole issue.  And that is the (reasonable to assume) fact that most sources that use the term "White Privilege" will tend to be supporting belief in the concept, while sources that refute that belief will probably not be using the actual term.  This will make it much easier to find RS's that support one side than RS's that support the other.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? We're debating a form of racism on a Wikipedia talk page about that type of racism? The correct fix is to add the following template to the top of the article: Db-multiple|G1|G10|G11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AF4JM (talk • contribs)

Chapters and reorganisation

I've reorganised the article. There's now a lot more structure. The definitions are prominent, instead of put to the back. The aspects and critique are clearly organised. As for neutrality, the opening lines introduce the concept and it's context. It was just a matter of structuring it properly. The only change I made was to take out "Western countries" in the second paragraph because, "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" also does not refer to the West. Is the first line neutral? Well, it doesn't matter. There is no problem with the opening section confidently assert that this is a scholarly term. Nobody is going to understand it at first anyway. It's quite clear that there's criticism of the concept, so no need to worry about someone jumping to a rash conclusion. Travelmite (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I think your changes are an improvement, but we can still make the article better than it is. A few suggestions:

1: The wording of the first sentence still implies that White Privilege definitely exists in the present. This is why I think it's important for the first sentence to say that White Privilege "is a theory" or "is a concept".

2: It seems non-neutral to describe David Marcus as "a conservative critic", when we don't bring up the political orientation of any of the liberal commentators whose views we discuss. We should mention the political orientation of either all of them or for none of them (I suggest the latter).

3: I still think Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Race should be cited in this article, if not in the lede then at least in the body text.

If there are no objections, I'll make these changes myself sometime in the next few days. 103.47.145.181 (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

1. You oppose it, so be smart and cede the first line to the proponents. 2. If you read the article, David Marcus is writing as a conservative to other conservatives. That cannot be ignored, plus I used Marcus later to briefly indicate the attitude of conservatives. Politically orientation was already there, such as the Marxist critique. As a social issue, it may be helpful to also to know that McIntosh was informed by her feminism when writing the "Invisible Backpack", because she starts by talking about her observations on men. 3. Not sure what you have in mind, but the connection to "white privilege" should be solid. Travelmite (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The way the article describes critics of the concept also is a problem with respect to Shelby Steele. He is introduced as a "Conservative scholar and opponent of affirmative action programs". Apart from the question of neutrality, this also is a WP:SYNTHESIS problem. The cited ABC news article does not mention that Steele is a conservative or that he's an opponent of affirmative action, so this information presumably was gathered from unrelated sources about him. If the source we're citing for his views about White Privilege does not mention those things about him, we should not be mentioning them either.

You've argued below that there isn't currently a consensus for changing the first sentence, but let's see what opinions other uninvolved editors express in the RFC. 103.47.145.180 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

__________
Hello Travelmite.  I agree with much of what you wrote, but there are parts with which I must disagree.  But to start, let me say that I am in full agreement with you when you write:  "There is no problem with the opening section confidently assert that this is a scholarly term."  I believe there are abundant reliable sources to back up the fact that "White Privilege" is a scholarly term.  However I respectfully (but thoroughly) disagree with you when you write:  "Is the first line neutral? Well, it doesn't matter."  I believe it matters a great deal!  WP:NPOV clearly requires a neutral point of view "......which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias [emphasis added], all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources......"  And WP:NPOV provides no exemption for the first sentence of an article.  Indeed I believe that an article's lede is its most important part because it is the first part (sometimes the only part) that a reader will read.  And the first sentence is the most important of all because it sets the tone for the whole article; and for that reason I believe the first sentence should be totally free from even the appearance of bias.  I think that could be corrected in this article by a very minor change in wording, such as:

• White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the concept that there are  societal privileges  that benefit people identified as..........

I believe such a change would eliminate any trace of bias (or perceived bias) from the sentence, while preserving its otherwise excellent definition of the term.
Richard27182 (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, NPOV. Sometimes, its impossible for any of us to know that perfect middle point, so a bit of give and take is needed. When I wrote "It doesn't matter", I am speaking to the critics who argue that it's controversial. It won't matter to their critique if its called a term, notion, concept, claim or theory. I agree there exists opposition to it. But to try to force a watering-down the first line is just counter-productive for everyone, including the reader. Travelmite (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Travelmite.  With all due respect, I don't believe my proposal "waters down" the first sentence one iota.  I believe it takes an otherwise near perfect definition of "White Privilege" and removes a slight trace of bias from it.  Whether or not (and if so, to what degree) "White Privilege" exists today can be brought out in the main body of the article with reliable sources.  The lede (and especially the first sentence) should stick to simply defining it, without including the subtle editorial comment implying it definitely exists.  By the way I am one of those "critics who argue that it's controversial"; and it would make a significant difference to me if it were called a notion, concept, claim, or theory, rather than being presented right from the start as a fact.  You admit that the issue involves controversy; why would you want the article to take sides on that controversial issue right off the bat in the first sentence? 
Richard27182 (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There such a long discussion about it. There must be someone here who is objecting to it being changed? Look, let me put it this way. At the moment, you are thinking only in US current-affairs mode. In South Africa, white people once got an unequivocal privilege to vote, so that alone is probably enough to justify the wording. If there is a political proposal, fictional world or legal case involving or clearly allowing such privileges, it's also enough to justify the wording. I also checked also how it's handled in other articles. Provided there is an objector, I cannot see you overcoming this. But my advice to you, is that this isn't a battle worth fighting. It's not implied to the extent you think it is. Your time is better spent on finding some interesting scholarship instead. Travelmite (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Travelmite.
 I remain convinced that the article has serious WP:NPOV issues and, if I'm reading you correctly, you are just as convinced it does not.  I really do not believe there is any point in continuing our discussion since the only thing we're ever likely to be able to agree on is the fact that we disagree.
 Please note that other editors have also indicated the opinion that the article has neutrality problems; and in some cases using wording a lot stronger than mine.
 Your suggestion that "[My] time is better spent on finding some interesting scholarship instead" has been noted.  However I do intend to continue actively participating in this RfC.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There is an insurmountable problem with your "refers to" wording, and it is documented in WP:REFERS. Someone might disagree over whether it exists (ditto for atoms, HIV, moon landings, and many other things), but those doubts don't change the fact that the article is about the "thing" rather than the "words". When Wikipedia discusses things, it says what they are (or are believed to be). The most direct, encyclopedic approach to the first sentence for any article that isn't actually about words as words is to think about the relevant dictionary definition, and to write "<name of article> is <definition>" – not "<name of article> refers to <some nebulous stuff related to the subject>". This gives you "an atom is (whatever the physicist say an atom is this decade)", "HIV is a virus", "A moon landing is when a person lands on the Moon", and "White privilege is a set of societal advantages that white people receive and non-white people (mostly) don't". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

[inserted 09:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)]

Hello WhatamIdoing.  I have read your message and also WP:REFERS.  And I would have no problem whatsoever with changing my proposed language for the first sentence from

• White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the concept that there are  societal privileges  that benefit people identified as..........

to

• White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the concept that there are  societal privileges  that benefit people identified as..........

If that was your only objection to my proposal(s), then I would say we were basically in agreement.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be more in keeping with the spirit of REFERS to say White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the set of societal privileges that benefit people identified as.... This is because white privilege actually is that particular set of privileges, whether or not anyone is actually receiving those privileges at the moment, just like HIV actually is a virus, whether or not it anyone actually is infected with it at the moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Going back to the RfC, the question was "should the first paragraph be written in a way that says White Privilege definitely exists, or should it be qualified to indicate that not all fields accept the concept?" I think we've reframed it a bit to saying "societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances" exist. There's overwhelming weight in the sources on this, particularly in the past (Apartheid, Jim Crow, Naturalization Act of 1790, each of which legally mandated certain privileges for whites) and present-day discrimination is well-established in RS (see Racism in the United States).

So, here's the challenge for those who want to change it. Show us the "fields" that reject the concept, and reliable sources that claim the present set of "societal privileges…" is zero. I'm more that willing to write them up, but I haven't seen that yet (nothing I read in Sowell differs from the list of conceptual criticisms, rather than denials, described later in the lead). So Richard27182, that would be interesting scholarship.--Carwil (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Carwil.
I appreciate your observations and remarks.  I am most willing to discuss them; but I do not intend to end up in another protracted discussion that goes absolutely nowhere as I did with Travelmite.  I have three points which I would like to make concerning the current version of the lede sentence:

• White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges  that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

1. The sentence is written in the present tense, indicating that "White privilege" exists in the present time.  Therefore I believe that all reliable sources used to back up that claim should be limited to those that refer to or describe present day conditions, events, or situations; not those of years, decades, or centuries ago.
2. I believe that the way the lede sentence is written would cause a reasonable person reading the sentence and taking it at face value to draw the conclusion that the article is claiming that "White privilege" automatically and every time confers its benefits on White people.  (ie, if you're White you can always count on getting the benefits.  Which I don't think anyone would seriously suggest.)    
3. As I've pointed out before, most sources that use the term "White Privilege" will tend to be supporting belief in the concept and maximizing its effect, while sources that refute the belief or minimize its effect will probably not be using that actual term. This will make it much easier to find RS's that support one side than RS's that support the other.  I'm not sure what the solution is to this problem; but I think it deserves very serious consideration when evaluating (including counting) reliable sources on each side of the issue.

I believe this RfC would benefit greatly if all of us would stop seeing this as a yes/no issue (ie, yes "White privilege" exists, or no it does not exist).  But rather determine the degree to which it exists in the present day and the extent to which it actually affects people's lives, and phrase the lede sentence to reflect that.  I cannot speak on behalf of other dissenting editors; but I myself would consider it a major step forward if, in the lede sentence, the word "benefit" were changed to "sometimes benefit."

Richard27182 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

1. It only indicates the term exists in the present tense
2. Agree or not, that's exactly what the proponents do suggest.
3. That makes no sense. It wouldn't happen, and we could do anything about it anyway.
4. We cannot determine the degree it exists. That's above the wiki editor pay-grade. Travelmite (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The present existence of racial stratification of privileges within society is the majority view of reliable sources (witness AAA, ASA above). It's also a majority view of the public, per polling cited in the page. Further, the questions of "degree" and "extent" that Richard27182 raises are in no way compromised by the opening sentence. Further, the "automatic" and "every time" questions are simply not implied by the sentence as worded.

White privilege is not the term for those privileges that sometimes benefit white people. It's a term for precisely those privileges that do benefit white people.

I am okay with inserting those, though:

• White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for those societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

Is that better?--Carwil (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I've seen this before, when someone is too invested, for too long on their preferred edit. As I read it, it just does not imply a confirmed present-day existence. It's just a way of analysis. If it's totally fallacious, bring out the critics. Travelmite (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"Is a term" is not appropriate. The article is about the privileges, not about the term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• RfC Comment: Responding after seeing this discussion mentioned on the front page talk section. On the subject of the RFC, the lede clearly identifies the topic as part of a certain theory. I look at something like strings, which is a part of String Theory -- a totally apolitical theory in physics, and I see that the lead discusses it in terms of the theory. The lede of that article does not spend time with the critical view of string theory, that's reserved for the main article. The article then procedes to explain strings as if they were accepted reality by all, as a fact. It's an article about strings, after all, so it explains strings in detail. In this article, the topic is a component of critical race theory. The lede identifies the subject as part of a theory, the article explains the topic. This subject has been politicized, and makes some people feel defensive (observe the above discussion!), so we've included critical viewpoints through the entire article, as well as the parent article. It is this personal and emotional need to respond that is the barrier to an encyclopedic article covering this topic, not the lede. If anything, the lede spends too much time discussing the criticism. On the RfC, my take is that the lede is fine if skewing to long because of all the careful treatment of criticism. -- GR Mule ^{(Talk/Contribs/Michigan)} 21:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the lede does a more or less reasonable job of balancing opposing points of view, but with one objection.  I believe the second and third paragraphs should be reversed in order.  The fact that there are those who disagree with the concept should be mentioned a lot sooner (like right after the first paragraph).
Richard27182 (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone put a citation tag on "pro-equality" critiques. The edit summary is "There are no "pro-equality academics" criticizing WP in the cited article, just Bill O'Reilly, an anonymous e-mail writer, and a college freshman". So specious! 199.168.113.216 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

split proposal

I see that white privilege in the United States currently redirects to this article. Since it was previously brought up that this article is too US-centric, I think a good solution is to bring most of the detailed US-centric content into a new fork, leaving the article more globalized. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be a particularly American idea, and a particular type of American, to think about inequality in this way, because of the circumstances of that country. The point I was previously making is there's a lot of current affairs going in the US, and editors seem focused on that. One would think South African Apartheid would be better example, but that's history (or is it?). I sense that outside English-speaking countries, it's not much of a concept. I suggest keeping the article intact. Travelmite (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

"People" vs. "persons"

I've changed the use of the word "persons" to "people" throughout, except in direct quotations. "People" is the common English word for, well, people. "Persons" is a good and useful word in some contexts, to convey a specific meaning, but it's not common usage, and is jarring to read. -- The Anome (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

acceptability of Huffington Post blogs as a source

Another editor has alleged that blogs from HP are "self-published sources". This AFAIK is not true. Random writers cannot submit their material to Huffington Post and get published -- they have to go through an editorial vetting process. According to Wikipedia:Blogs as sources: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer". Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, HP won a Pulitzer Prize in 2012. I don't think it's fair to call it a "self-publisher" in that context. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello.

My understanding is that past consensus has been that Huffington Post publishes both reliable and non-reliable content. Content published under Huffington's "The Blog" banner is not as reliable, depending on context. While it's not as bad as a random Wordpress blog, it doesn't undergo the same level of editorial oversight and fact-checking as their journalistic content. I could be wrong about this, so we'll see what RSN says. Even if the source is broadly usable, since Gina Crosley-Corcoran isn't a recognized expert in social issues, and the website listed there as hers is definitely a blog and not a usable source, I still think the paragraph will need to be rewritten somewhat. Since the article doesn't provide any context for who she is or why she is being quoted, using her perspective in the lead is confusing and not entirely neutral. There are many perspectives on white privilege, why was hers selected as the prime example? Grayfell (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Her piece was widely-read, shared, and has also been cited by more pieces in years subsequent-- and in turn, she summarizes academic viewpoints that are sometimes written in a dry tone for a more popular audience. Thus, her piece represents the standard "social justice / intersectionality" viewpoint that has come to be present in many social media articles. The emergence of the intersectionality theorists is partially described in the "history" section (which needs to be restructured), but the modern synthesis seemed cogently summarized by Crosley-Corcoran. Also, I will reinforce with more academic sources when I get back journal access. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this diff on RSN (I hope this link won't eventually break when RSN gets archived) is a useful summarization of WP:RS policy: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact . Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

i agree with Greyfell. The Huff Post "The Blog" banner is not reliable. The Blog banner is where opinion pieces go to push a POV. Her inclusion in the lead is confusing and the narrative serves a point of view that doesn't seem neutral. The inclusion in the lead only adds more clutter and nothing new to the page. --OoflyoO (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. As an essay it's a perfectly valid one, that's not my problem. I would like a more objective explanation of why specifics from her essay is being cited at length. Emphasizing one example based on a primary source seems arbitrary to me. Relying on subjective assessments for determining what to include is unavoidable, but we should still be very cautious about it. It was widely read (which needs to be verifiable) but popularity isn't the main threshold we should be using. "Unpacking the invisible knapsack" is definitely significant, so it would be simpler and more neutral to emphasize that, rather than one person's reaction. If the article had reliable secondary sources about Crosley-Corcoran's essay, that would address my concerns. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Even conservative sources (which I am going to add) discuss Crosley-Corcoran's essay. An americanthinker article called "the lies of white privilege" has the writer "dissect[] Gina Crosley-Corcoran’s arguments in favor of “white privilege”. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I still think the lead is better without the last paragraph. I don't see the point. Waiting for the objective explanation of why specifics from her essay is cited at length in the lead. OoflyoO (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I used her as a source in the lead to cogently summarize other academic writers' common viewpoints on intersectionality, the interrelationship between different types of oppression (Peggy McIntosh explicitly makes these connections in her Invisible Backpack essay), and why the existence of white poverty doesn't invalidate the concept of white privilege. I further fleshed out this discussion in the body by introducing Kimberle Crenshaw, one of the early pioneers of intersectionality analysis. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's sort of what I asked for, but I would not call American Thinker reliable, and I don't think the article would be improved by linking to it. I wouldn't use the site as a source for anything other than as a WP:PRIMARY, and even then... That article in particular is very badly written. After removing the blatant falsehoods it could be summed up as "nu uh!". The article does indicate that this is of wider significance, but can we find something a bit more reliable? Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

inline comment tags (recentism, WP:DUE) etc.

Could we address them here rather than discussing through inline comments? Firstly, I don't think recentism is a problem per se-- firstly, there is a year (2015) in which to ground the discussion, and secondly, many many sources, including more conservative ones, discuss the recent changes in public perception of the concept of white privilege as a millenial or "recent" phenomenon, or one propagated by social media, but I used Hua Hsu's The New Yorker review as a way to coherently summarize this sentiment.

With regard to the second raised issue, I will note that the article is indeed very long (114 kb) and should probably be reorganized and forked off into subarticles at some point. This doesn't mean content should be removed, just eventually forked off to subarticles when they are created. I could use help in this process. The MTV show White People generated many reviews from many different sources, and a lot of discussion by many writers. I think it is in compliance with WP:DUE, especially as an abundance of sources referencing a film generally correlates with its notability and the importance of that viewpoint. Furthermore, what is the minority viewpoint that is being overrepresented? I also used discussions of the film in part, because this section is not only discussing the evolution of white privilege as a concept, but also its acceptance (or debate) by others outside academia, including white people themselves. Note that the section has specifically been organized and set aside for discussions of white privilege in the current social media era. I'm not sure what is more significant example of the transition of white privilege from a concept discussed in academia to a concept routinely talked about on social media / pop culture, than a widely-watched documentary on MTV. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to note that much from what I drew from the reviews wasn't really specific to the film itself, but to source common viewpoints in discussions of white privilege as well as its popular perceptions, especially among young people. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is this film given two paragraphs? It's not like there's any lack of literature on white privelege to use as sources—why focus so long and hard on this one film? Is it because it just came out and thus is fresh in the memory? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I would point out that the film has its own article, White People (film). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Because this film is relatively recent, and therefore belongs in the "social media era" section, a section which among other things, describes the public perception of white privilege since 2010. I am not using the film in the lead. Please note the section it is in. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this film is given two paragraphs in this article. Please read WP:WEIGHT. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not quite true. The first paragraph citing reviews of the film really has nothing to do with the film at all, they just discuss white privilege and its perceptions in the year 2015. Yes, they are taken from reviews of the film, but that doesn't mean they are primarily about the film. For one, I bumped into these reviews of the film quite by accident while compiling sources on perceptions white privilege in the social media era. I eventually decided to address the content of the film directly as it also seemed relevant. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In other words, you either haven't read or haven't understood WP:WEIGHT. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

By what means are you arguing the additions are undue? You're citing a policy as a one-liner. Maybe it's time for others to chime in. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for you to consider why a recent film should have so much prominence in an article about a subject that is the subject of thousands of scholarly articles. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You're not actually making an argument against its removal or reduction, CT. This article has hundreds of paragraphs. The film just has one; the other paragraph you claim isn't about the film, it just uses reviews of the film as a source for general points on white privilege. I'm not only using the film as a primary source, I'm also using numerous secondary sources. Remember: the weight proportional to a topic or a point of view, depends on the number of reliable sources. In this case, I see hundreds of reliable, authoritative sources about the film, not only commenting about the film itself, but commenting about white privilege. Therefore I think having two paragraphs in an article having hundreds of paragraphs of content seems justified.

Please, please, use the sources. Have you actually read the sources? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I know a thing or three about sourcing, and it goes beyond merely reading them. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's address WP:WEIGHT one by one

I'd like CT to summarize his argument as to why having two paragraphs about White People (film) is undue. (It's one paragraph about the film really -- the preceding paragraph are just authoritative reviewers' statements on white privilege or its perceptions in 2015.) He keeps citing the policy WP:WEIGHT. Here, I will address WP:WEIGHT as follows:

• Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. In this case, from a quick google search, I see hundreds of reliable, authoritative sources about the film, not only commenting on the film, but commenting about white privilege, in addition to the film itself commenting on white privilege, and talking about the impact of the film, of which there at least a dozen of prestigious ones (including The New Yorker, TIME, etc.)
• Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Does White People (film) constitute a "minority viewpoint" or a "minority" aspect? Does the film disagree with Peggy McIntosh or Kimberle Crenshaw? It was released by MTV, a major television channel in the United States, and also worldwide, and was widely seen by millions of people, and also generated intense discussion. Also, it is in a subsection (within the article's section "history of the concept") dealing with contemporary history of white privilege as a concept in the social media era, i.e. since 2007. Do you know of any other television shows or other forms of media, or articles, with different viewpoints and which commanded more influence and should be getting more attention? I would love for them to be included. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Did I say to remove mention of the film? No, I said two paragraphs focusing on a recent film is way too much weight for a topic that is the subject of thousands of scholarly articles over decades. But whatever—continue with your crusade. Add an "In pop culture" section and fill it with an overwhelming and easily-sourced list of fluffy fluff while you're at it. That would greatly improve the encyclopaedia. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Claim that "two-parent privilege" is bigger than white privilege

In the section called "White privilege versus socioeconomic privilege," I added a subsection called "Claim that 'two-parent privilege' is bigger than white privilege," and added the following content:

In a 2016 opinion column, conservative Dennis Prager wrote, "... there are a host of privileges that dwarf 'white privilege.' A huge one is 'two-parent privilege.' If you are raised by a father and mother, you enter adulthood with more privileges than anyone else in American society, irrespective of race, ethnicity or sex. That's why the poverty rate among two-parent black families is only 7 percent. Compare that to a 22 percent poverty rate among whites in single-parent homes. Obviously, the two-parent home is the decisive privilege."

User:Grayfell removed the content, and commented, "Reliability of source is questionable. Op-ed misrepresents the stated nature of white privilege. Quote is too long, also, and should be summarized.)"

If better sources are needed, then I suggest this academic article, which refers to information that is on page 15 of this academic report. It states that among people who finish high school, work full time, and are at least 21 years old and married before having their first baby, the poverty rate is only 2%. Among people who do none of those things before having their first baby, the poverty rate is 76%. This shows that personal behavior has a far bigger effect on poverty than does race.

I am interested in hearing what other editors think about including or not including this information in the article.

Gbcv 4376 (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell nobody anywhere is saying that race is the only important factor in poverty, and that's an absurd argument to make. That's why I said that the op-ed heinously misrepresents the stated definition of white privilege. Using the Brookings Institute post to support this content would be WP:OR, as that source doesn't mention white privilege or race at all. Saying that "personal behavior" is somehow unconnected to white privilege is entirely missing the point. Finishing high school and working full time are opportunities which are not provided evenly and can be grossly or subtly influenced by race in many complex ways. These things are not always obvious to white and non-white people, but they add up to make a significant impact. Those opportunities or their lack also influence marriage and parenthood patterns. Nobody is saying that white people never have any problems, or that non-white people cannot ever succeed, so those are counter examples to non-existent arguments. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

References