Talk:White privilege

White GENOCIDE

Should we include a section on White GENOCIDE as one of the many privileges of White people?

Mass immigration and FORCED assimilation in ALL White countries and ONLY White countries is GENOCIDE

UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2 1948

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such

c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part 146.90.28.241 (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest. It's my feeling that "white privilege" has more to do with "micropower" than with "macropower". That is, it has to do with the daily experiences and life experiences of white people, as opposed to the systemic consequences of racism. That being said, if there are reliable sources that connect the issue of genocide to "white privilege", they might be appropriate. For a historical event that directly relates to your question, check out "We Charge Genocide", a petition submitted to the United Nations in 1951. Thanks again for your comment and I hope you hang out for a little while to find out more about how Wikipedia works behind the scenes. groupuscule (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that the petition you cite originated more than 60 years ago. Certainly no one can argue that "GENOCIDE" (white or not) is a "privilege" of being white.

When using the term "FORCED assimilation," I wonder what the writer might be referring to? The only examples I can think of also are very dated--the establishment of government schools for Native American children, where the children were forbidden to use their native languages. These, of course, have not existed for about 50 years.

I believe the focus of this article is on the present, except for the section that talks about the history of "white privilege" as a theoretical concept. I know of no examples of "institutionalized racism" (much less genocide) in the United States today, except for those that grant special dispensation to specific groups based on race--so-called "affirmative action" programs. Fortunately this vestige of institutionalized racism is on the wane, as affirmative action has been made illegal in many states. A SCROTUS ruling is due out soon that will determine the legal status of race-based affirmative action nationwide. Apostle12 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The ugliest chapters in human history are those that involve genocide. At the moment I do not know what to say about this except that I will look to others for guidance on how we can relate genocide to white privilege. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So you are TRYING to relate genocide to white privilege? Apostle12 (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

POV and Oslick, Cook, and Guipe

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

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

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

Just wanted to note...

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

This article is an embarrassment to thought

Where do you even begin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.19.89 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Very convincing argument. I'm sold! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.13.199.40 (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight?

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

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

Tags Revisited

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

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

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

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

undue weight box

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basic point of view dispute criteria (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wealth and Justice sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps the article is about a theory; the lead currently says a lot more about theory than what white privilege actually is. However, white privilege is not a theory. White privilege is "a highly structural and spatial form of racism"[1]. Any reliable source you find is going to say something resembling this. (I hope this also answers the question you ask below about the "Justice" section.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie Paradox (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Basics -- What's the subject?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black doll white doll research

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

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

Murray Rothbard Paragraph

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

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

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

The following paragraph was added by an IP editor today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reception in the Academic Community

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

Recent Reverts

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

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

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

World view

Unless W P is unique to USA I have placed tags to aid in developing this article to reflect WP as a global study. I am adding this as some people seem to own this page and other editors dont get to contribute. To much weight is on America. What about South Africa, What about Israel (yes Israel), And Europe?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right. White privilege is by no means limited to the US, so these are all good questions. Do you know of any good starting points for finding information on these matters? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No i dont which is why it is an issue because I came here to find that info and didn't. But I would say start with South Africa. There is an excellent article on white privileged (i feel like i mention this before unless it is dejavu) by a Kenyan writer. I will search and find it. But it proves the issue of W P even in Kenya.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

found stuff Mandela and for guides to other viewpoints I wish i could develop it but I am researching religion.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. I have read the article, and I will watch the videos (if only for my own education, but hopefully they will make me a more prepared editor as well). Unfortunately I will not have the time to watch or work on this over the weekend. Perhaps another editor would like to begin this task? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that South Africa would be a useful separate section. We probably should cover the pre-1947 South African educational system, education under apartheid, and then the post-1996 educational system. Racepacket (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

it would be a good start, because in both periods is the issue of W P.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is still very lopsided for the US. But at least the lead should probably include South Africa. "Europe, the Americas, and South Africa"? Or use the whole continent? groupuscule (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

how about "Europe, the Americas, and those parts of Africa heavily settled by whites, such as South Africa"? For that matter, we could probably include Australia, and may want to make some reference to the fact that this phenomenon has similarities to colonialism, as well as acknowledging that the scholarship may not be as well developed in other countries' academy or legal systems. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Disputed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FWIW this article is not a POV fork. At its earliest it was article that gave undue weight to unsourced radical leftist criticisms of the view that white privilege exists.[2] This article is what it is now, because editors have tried to create an article based on reliable sources. While I welcome the recent interest in this article, I hope that new editors will look at past edits and discussions and try to understand why we have done things the way we have before retreading old ground and repeating past errors. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Article Title

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

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

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

"White Privilege Advocates" and "Theory Proponents"

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

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

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

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

Atrociously slanted & highly offensive/condescending...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statements like these are not much better:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some things to consider:

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

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

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

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

New Section needed

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

Request Title Change to White-Skin Privilege

This article sure touched a sore spot, did it not? The theory of white-skin privilege is an internationally accepted theory of racial imperative and its impacts. Books, journal articles and PhD. theses have been published as far back as "White Skins, Black Masks" in 1952 by Algerian psychiatrist Franz Fanon. True, there are an inexhaustible number of theories in the fields of sociology, psychology and psychiatry on all types of psycho-social problems. While these fields, and theories, are not necessarily empirical-based studies, as with the hard sciences, would we throw out the theory of social interactionism, the theory of harm reduction, Freudian psychoanalytic theories, theories of therapeutic interventions, etc? If so, then there would be little to study in institutions of higher learning other than the hard sciences. The soft theories fall somewhere between art and science, as any practitioner knows. So, what is the problem here, white guilt? Racial superiority amongst Wiki editors? This article is clearly as sound as any other theory just enumerated.

Highly recommend that the tone and other tags be removed without delay and that the article be reclassified/reassessed as a B-class article. Note this is the first comment in more than a year. Any more thoughts Wikipedians? Don't be shy. Weathervane13 (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Support. This article has scores of citations. There is no reason it should have had the tags for as long as it has. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: there's a lot of commentary above about the article that will got lost in a name change discussion.

Opppose. A quick google books search suggests White skin privilege loses to White privilege per WP:COMMONNAME. Equally importantly, the boundaries of socially recognized whiteness aren't necessarily all mainatained on the color of skin. The legal battles in the United States over whether Iranians, Egyptians, Armenians, and Indians were legally white are just one example. Similarly, it's possible for socially nonwhite people (such as light-skinned Native Americans) to incidentally have access to "white skin privilege."

It would be useful to sort out the usages of "white-skin privilege" and "white skin-privilege" in this article. I don't see a big or clear enough distinction to divide the article in any way.--Carwil (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I should probably clarify that what I support is the removal of tags. When it comes to the article title, my only desire is that whatever term is used be used consistently throughout the article. I will happily support the consensus regarding which term this should be. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that, in contemporary America, Asians enjoy just as much normative "privilege" as do Caucasians (income, education, social standing), perhaps even more. Yet their skin is hardly white, and they do not identify as "white." Also plenty of blacks and latinos achieve "privilege" as well. This whole "white privilege" discussion seems forced to me. Mainly it's a class thing; people who represent themselves a certain way (educated, conscious, considerate, respectful, well-spoken, competent) enjoy easy acceptance, both personally and professionally. You might make a case that this is a self-perpetuating "class" thing. But it has little to do with race or skin color. And it has nothing to do with "white" racial identity.

This is patently false; to claim even for a moment that people of Asian descent share equal privilege as white individuals is simply untrue. The racist attitudes Asian Americans and Asian immigrants are forced to endure at the hands of the media and the general population on a day-to-day basis are very real. Consider looking up the phenomenon of the "perpetual foreigner," look at the stereotypes perpetuated in television and movie depictions of people of Asian descent, or simply ask a few people that identify as Asian and ask them about the racism and constant microaggressions that they have had to endure during their lives. Every person that I have spoken to about racism and race issues that identifies as Asian has told me that they experience blatant racism and are daily affected by the threat of racism. This is arguably exactly what this article is about: that the privilege of being white allows white people (like you, I am assuming) to dismiss racism in its less overt forms because they are not forced to experience its effects. This avoidance of racism is an unearned benefit of being white that people of color are not able to enjoy. I would suggest that you think about talking to people who are Asian or simply read some essays by Asian writers. I am absolutely certain that you will see that you are very much misinformed regarding this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.13.199.40 (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this article needs to be rewritten to reflect a growing consensus that the social theory of "white privilege" is an anachronism associated with flawed late twentieth century thinking. Defective social theories need to be discarded, yet they also need to be remembered as the aberrations they were. Theories having to do with Aryan racial superiority, which found expression in the eugenics movement, come easily to mind. Apostle12 (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We are supposed to use the Talk page to discuss the article and not the topic of the article, so I will take your first paragraph to be a suggestion that we might improve the article by explicitly enumerating some of the ways white people have privilege over Asians specifically. Would you like to take an active role in improving the article by including mentions of the fact that Asians are more likely than any other ethnic group in the US to get bullied[3] or that Asians in the US are seen as the least "American"[4]?

I will take your second paragraph to be an indication that it is time to replace our current approach to explaining to new editors that what matters on Wikipedia is not what any given editor thinks but what reliable, independently verifiable sources say. Do you have any thoughts on how we can better express this?

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is utter nonsense that white people have privilege over Asians. What you have written in this section is typical of the confused sort of thinking that attends this topic. Please make some attempt to clarify your thoughts before attempting to write them down. Thank you.Apostle12 (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This post is off topic. --Cornince (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Criticisms of White Privilege"

I have made changes to the section "Criticisms of white privilege" and moved the material into the "Wealth" section. My reasons are as follows:

• "Criticism" sections are discouraged on Wikipedia.
• Despite the title of the section it was not a criticism of unearned advantages that white people receive.
• Before my edits there was reference to "white privilege theory"; this phrasing is problematic for reasons already discussed here.

Even as it stands, this text might require more editing; a cursory glance at Forrest and Dunn's paper suggests to me that what we currently have does not reflect their viewpoints very well.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "Criticisms" section does not belong under the section on the US. However, in my opinion one small paragraph does not warrant a section on its own. More importantly, the title "Criticisms of White Privilege" is still problematic for reasons already discussed. For now I am going to incorporate. I will be incorporating the material into the overview section. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Complete Lack of Criticism

There are at least two broad problems with this article, as is. The first is that there is virtually no presentation of criticism of the theory of white privilege. The second is that much of the article deals with forms of discrimination against minorities, with no direct connection to the idea of white privilege. While I see the connection between the idea of white privilege and discrimination, the discussion of discrimination must be tied in with a discussion of the theory, and currently much of the article reads as a list of forms of racial discrimination. The goal of this article should be to lay out what the theory is, what debate has occurred around it, and its historical origins. I'm going to work to address these problems with the current article. I look forward to working with the other editors here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over "alleged" and other mitigation language

There doesn't seem to me to be a compelling need to preface any statements in the first paragraph with "alleged." I mistakenly cited WP:WEASEL in reverting edits by Apostle12 when i more rightly should have used WP:ALLEGED, which seems rather clearly to argue against the use of "alleged" here. I think there is room for scholarship on points of view which contrast with critical race theory, though I'm not sure how the article would be organized in that event. Open to suggestions. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the bar by opening this discussion. The first sentence of the lede now reads:

"In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the alleged advantages that white people accrue from society as on the alleged disadvantages that people of color experience." (emphasis added)

The reason I believe "alleged" is an appropriate addition to this sentence is because proponents of the "white privilege" aspect of critical race theory allege that white people accrue societal advantages simply by virtue of their being white, and proponents of the "white privilege" aspect of critical race theory allege that "people of color" experience disadvantages simply by virtue of their...pigmentation, I guess. In fact the entire first paragraph of this article, including the first sentence, is so weasily that it should be entirely rewritten.

Here is what WP:ALLEGED says: "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear."

The source of the accusation in this case are proponents of the concept of "white privilege" within the context of critical race theory. Wrongdoing, specifically unfair advantage and unfair disadvantage, is definitely asserted. Yet these allegations are based on various outcomes that have often been refuted (e.g. income disparity between asian "people of color" and whites is non-existent). Under scrutiny it becomes clear that such allegations of unfairness are mere assumptions based on crude observation of outcomes, rather than being the result of carefully considered empirical evidence. They are therefore "undetermined."

The addition I made therefore is in strict compliance with WP:ALLEGED and should remain. Apostle12 (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In regards to your position on WP:ALLEGE, I respectfully disagree. the example, "such as with people on trial for crimes" appears to me to be referring to individuals, rather than ethnic groups. Is there some way we can reconcile this, maintaining the language referring to critical race theory without the modifiers, while still allowing criticism of the overarching theory? I would also submit that income disparities are not the primary thrust of critical race theory, so even though i would appreciate your additional input re: refutation, I am also not sure it is all that germane. Perhaps additional input is needed to clarify the WP:ALLEGE policy? UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have posted at WT:MOS asking for additional clarification UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with use of "alleged" in the lead here. We do use "alleged" to qualify accusations—but we would use it instead of, not in addition to, a statement such as "X accuses that Y." Similarly, here, we have 'Critical race theory says...'; therefore, the substance of what it says has the status of an allegation already. Additionally, however, I personally I don't find the existence of white privilege in the US to be an undetermined "allegation". In fact, if you look at the page on white people, you'll find that the concept of social privilege is more or less built into the definition (since it's not a cohesive genetic category). Cf. Jewish & Irish populations 'becoming white' in the US based on becoming accepted as part of the 'dominant race'. The existence of white privilege is also, I think, confirmed by broad academic consensus. groupuscule (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The use of "alleged" is inappropriate here. First, the sentence makes clear at the beginning ("In critical race theory, white privilege is ...") that white privilege is understood in the context of critical race theory—which posits the existence of white supremacy. Second, as groupuscule notes, the existence of white privilege is a fact, not an "allegation".

Finally, WP:ALLEGED has no bearing here at all. It applies "when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". What wrongdoing is being asserted? A fact is being described, or an academic discipline is being explicated, but an assertion of wrongdoing? Where? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It is, at best, sophistry to refuse to acknowledge that wrongdoing is being asserted. Unfair advantage is wrongdoing. Unfair disadvantage is wrongdoing. As far as the "existence of white privilege being confirmed by broad academic consensis," I am sure that is true among academics whose field of specialty is "White Privilege"--nowhere else. Apostle12 (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A search for "white privilege" in Google Scholar shows uses from disciplines such as education, psychology, anthropology, sociology, geography, and more, in addition to disciplines that focus on "race". No results in the first hundred seem to dispute the existence of "white privilege" entirely. Some people do tell stories of being ignorant of white privilege and then discovering it. Where should we search to find the rebuttals you're describing, Apostle12? groupuscule (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Accusing people of sophistry seems like a violation of WP:PA to me, since one of its meanings includes "intent to deceive." Unfair advantage can stem from wrongdoing, or it can stem from simple chance. Furthermore, i can imagine scenarios where one can be aware or unaware of one's unfair advantage; if we were applying a legalistic standard, there may or may not be means rea. If you could explain a little bit more about what you mean in suggesting that unfair advantage is directly equivalent to wrongdoing maybe we can sort this out. In the meantime, I have reverted the edit, and I would invite you to engage further with any scholarship you might be aware of on the topic, either on this article, or preferably on the article on critical race theory, since I gather that your dispute is mainly with that body of work. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED seems to be specifically dealing with issues of criminal behavior, but the word "alleged" has other legitimate meanings. It seems sufficiently neutral to me in this context, but perhaps a word that does not also have connotations of criminality might be best. All we really need to say is that the advantages and disadvantages have not been proven to exist or not proven to have been caused by race, that white privilege is more "these things are consistent with a white privilege explanation" and not "studies have shown that these things are caused by white privilege." How about "theoretical," "hypothetical" or "asserted"?

"In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the possible advantages that white people might or do accrue from society as on the disadvantages that people of color do or might experience." (emphasis added)

The "might or do" could be improved, but I like the way it shows that white privilege covers both things that we know happen, like it being nearly impossible for white men to have their accomplishments written off as affirmative action, and things that are purely hypothetical. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The crux of this matter lies in the definition of "privilege." According Mirriam-Webster "privilege" means "a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor." So, the question becomes "Have white people been GRANTED a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor?"

It seems obvious that, historically, white people used legal means to grant themselves peculiar benefits, advantages, or favors. By extension, those who were not white were not granted peculiar benefits, advantages, or favors--they thus became "disadvantaged" or "unprivileged." Yet not all outcome disparities can be attributed to this granting, or failure to grant, "peculiar benefits, advantages, or favors." And the legal means that were used to confer "peculiar benefits, advantages, or favors" were long ago abandoned in recognition of the fact that they were unjust.

(In fact the only vestiges of institutional racism that remain in force today are those intended to confer "peculiar benefits, advantages, or favors" on specific groups comprised of "people of color"--race-based affirmative action programs, race-based hiring quotas, etc. White people tend to be acutely aware of race-based affirmative action programs, hiring quotas, etc. because they are disadvantaged by this sort of institutionalized racism. This makes white people particularly sensitive to charges that they enjoy "white privilege." Also, it may be instructive to realize that many Jim Crow laws in the American South were instituted as a kind of "affirmative action" for whites, who found it difficult to compete in the labor market with skilled slaves freed at the end of the Civil War.)

So we arrive at a final quesiton: Does "white privilege" exist today? And this is where the picture gets muddy, where there is controversy, and where we need some kind of mitigation language. Some allege that "white privilege" continues in the form of informal courtesies, automatic extensions of trust, and even in commercial norms. ("Can I easily find bandaids that match the color of my skin, or someone who knows how to cut my hair?") Others insist that these issues do not rise the the level of "privilege," since legally sanctioned white privelege lies at least forty years in our past.

I am beginning to see that to use "alleged" is too connotative of legal processes. Yet I also believe that some kind of mitigation language is necessary. I think "might" is sufficient, and I have added it to the sentence in question. This sentence now reads, "In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people might accrue from society as on the disadvantages that people of color might experience." "Might" allows for the likelihood that such advantages and disadvantages exist even in the absence of legal sanctions, whether or not they are intended, whether or not they are uniformly experienced by "people of color" (lots of variation that has nothing to do with skin pigmentation), and whether or not white people are even aware of such advantages and disadvantages. Apostle12 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I admit to some confusion as to why you seem unwilling to break out criticisms into a separate section, cite appropriate scholarship, a and acknowledge that separately in the lede. I have reverted these changes, and would ask that you not continue to insert what appears to me to be editorializing. At the same time, I (and I imagine others) would welcome an additional section on this topic.

To me, the discussion about your edits seemed to indicate that the mitigating language you inserted was not appropriate in the lede, regardless of the specific word choice. Since it's clear that you have strong feelings about this topic, I think that WP users would be much better served by a fuller explanation of the issues at hand, and i can think of no better person to provide that than you, provided of course that there is adherence to basic tenets like WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. I very much look forward to seeing such a section, and am more than happy to help write it, but I admit that I would need to be directed to appropriate sources, as social science is not my main avocation. Feel free to ping me on my talk page and we can discuss this further.

UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of asking for help over at WP:DRN

UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to reproduce my comments from over there, since I intended to provoke:

The process of establishing WP:NPOV is of course very delicate when it comes to topics concerning race. I want to caution everyone that simply 'neutralizing' language does not automatically create a neutral viewpoint. I also want to emphasize that just because race is a psychosocial construct doesn't mean there can't be objective facts relating to how race affects society. It is a painfully objective (and abundantly verifiable) fact in the United States that people with darker skin are more likely to be targeted by law enforcement in public places. This fact does not prove that it is 'better' or 'easier' to be white on the whole—these generalizations probably cannot be established as matters of encyclopedic fact, and should be treated as allegations or frameworks from the perspective of some people ("critical race theorists"? "most scholars who study race in the United States"?) who analyze them. We might hope for a neutral society, in parallel to our neutral encyclopedia, in which there was no systematic racial discrimination. But in fact it is dangerous to generalize our neutrality in this way. Brown v. Board ended legal segregation in the American public school system, but it would be completely inaccurate to say that Brown led to integration when by all reports American schools are more segregated than they were in the 1950s.

Guy Macon, I like the wording on both of those pages that you've linked. The concept of "white privilege" should not be made overcomplicated or qualified and hedged in order to be explained. I would note that Wikipedia has over tens of thousands on articles on the institutions of white America—e.g., the United States (wow, this page really says "Christopher Colombus discovered...")—without flagging them as specifically white. But you can't go to the page on Maryland and write "The Europeans who colonized Maryland wiped out the people who already lived there and for two hundred years amassed wealth by forcing enslaved Africans to work for them" in the lede—it's simply not done, even though (IMO?) this statement is accurate from the perspective of global history. (I also want to highlight and dispute the idea that the Aryan Nation and the Black Panthers are comparable extremes to be avoided. You could just as easily compare the Black Panthers to an organized group of white people like the US Senate. By the way, Eisenhower avoided meeting with civil rights leaders according to the same logic: 'if I meet with you, I'll have to meet with the KKK'—even though one group was entering public spaces nonviolently and simply asserting their right to be there, whereas the other was responsible for lynchings and mass terror.) These types of bias on the encyclopedia are of course related to (if not precisely examples of) "white privilege". Thank you everyone for discussing these issues with open minds. I appreciate how many thoughtful and unique perspectives are expressed here. groupuscule (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

DId I miss the whole thing~? I couldn't find the dispute on the appropriate page. I agree using the word "Alleged" is a nice white wash, it almost makes racism look like it lives inside of the minds of the victims, really now. "It is alleged that African Americans suffer from institutional racism" -- creates reasonable doubt to the legitimacy of the claim. mitigatory language in favor of White domination. --Inayity (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"non-whites" or "people of color"

I was going to write this on WP:DRN but then noticed that you had made the edits here. I find the suggestion to use "non-white" instead of "people of color," while still respecting your good faith suggestion, to be somewhat offensive. The use of "non-white" in this case suggests an identity of exclusion, which as I understand it, is the reason the "people of color" term exists, and to be perfectly frank, the suggestion to use "non-white" could be construed as a symptom of white privilege itself, in the sense that one is using "white" normatively (see article). I would be interested to learn of any scholarship that sheds light on the matter, as Apostle12 suggests that the dissatisfaction with the term is broad-based or widespread enough to be included in the article. Again, if such scholarship exists (and I have no reason to say that it doesn't) I think that would be a useful contribution to WP, either in this article or in another one. I would be more than happy to help write something with Apostle12 if provided with such information. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me some people are just itching to be upset about something. Really getting ridiculous. Like complaining that whites are never accused of having benefitted disproportionately from affirmative action....well, yeah, because whites NEVER GET affirmative action benefits! "People of color" is offensive to some people because it implies that whites have no color (talk about "identity of exclusion") when in fact whites obviously do have color; in fact whites are the ones who keep all those tanning parlors in business because they want MORE MELANIN in their skin! Like I said, this is just getting ridiculous! Apostle12 (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Peggy McIntosh's piece is, if I am not mistaken, the most widely cited resource on white privilege. Because it uses the term "people of color", I recommend we do the same. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this the piece to which you are referring? http://ted.coe.wayne.edu/ele3600/mcintosh.html Has she written more? Apostle12 (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In my limited experience, this 'knapsack' essay is popular and well-known as an intro to "white privilege" for white people. There would be certain ironies in using it as the guideline for terminology because it speaks as white. groupuscule (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just found a masters' thesis titled "White privilege: a history of the concept"—should be very useful to us in our endeavors here. This thesis says that McIntosh was key in popularizing the concept with the knapsack essay in 1987, but that the term has a longer history of historical use, starting with legal privileges like suffrage. groupuscule (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Apostle12, yes, that is the one. If you want to read more, you could do worse than browse the Google Scholar results for Peggy McIntosh. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Just read Bennett's masters' thesis, and I must say that the quality of the work is very low. Many uncorrected spelling and grammatical errors distract from the points being made, but far more troubling is the author's blind logic: Bennett assumes that disparities in outcome MUST be the result of a continuation of anti-people-of-color attitudes. Nowhere, for example, is personal responsibility mentioned. Reading this author, one might conclude that even the great disparity between whites and blacks in venereal disease rates, especially HIV infection, might also be the result of "white privilege." Example after example is given--graffiti-covered trains serving black ghetto areas are blamed on the unwillingness of supervisors to commit funds to cleaning them up (hey, maybe the people living in these areas deface the cars, unlike the people living in white middle-class neighborhoods), high crime rates in black neighborhoods are blamed on indifferent police who "let" crime flourish rather than trying to stop it (hey, maybe the people living in these areas are more prone to criminality and more tolerant of criminality among their peers). Example after example, with barely even a qualifier that might admit the possibility that different outcomes can have many causes OTHER than "white privilege."

Also missing, in the most glaring way, is the fact that many people of color (whole groups of them, not just a few) are doing quite well thank you. They seem not to be much affected by "white privilege." The student body at the University of California at Berkeley is disproportionately asian (I do not capitalize the names of racial groups), far out of proportion to the percentage of asians living in California. By comparison, whites are underrepresented. Relatively few blacks and latinos gain admittance now that race-based affirmative action is illegal in California--those who do attend the UC campuses are admitted on merit. (And their academic achievements will be respected accordingly.) It is simply inconceivable that someone on high is orchestrating these disparities among racial groups, consciously or unconsciously. And it's not just UC attendance--asians outperform whites in terms of income, life expectancy, and many other key indicators. Maybe, just maybe, this has to do with the direction that asian culture has taken--emphasizing personal discipline, education, family ties, and responsible behavior. "Whiteness" or "coloredness" has nothing to do with it, and the vast majority of Americans have moved beyond this archaic sort of thinking.

"White privilege" may be a real phenomenon to a limited degree, but until the level of scholarship in this area becomes more incisive and less committed to inducing guilt among white people, many will be prone to discount "white privilege" as a serious topic of discussion. Perhaps the article would do well to include commentary from critics of "white privilege." Apostle12 (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As I've offered repeatedly in this discussion, I think you are probably the editor best equipped to write such a section, and I would be happy to assist, should you ever decide to dig up some scholarship on it. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. Thanks for your encouragement.Apostle12 (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a comment to make here that would definitely be O.R. if it were injected into the article, however it occurs to me that the "white/people of color" dichotomy that we have been discussing is artificially loaded. The basic premise of this dichotomy is "white skin good/colored skin bad." But what we are really discussing is people of many different racial heritages--northern European, eastern European, southern European, African, Native American, Indian (from India) and Asian. The distinctions get pretty muddy--Are southern Europeans "people of color?" Those from Spain? Those from Portugal? Those from Italy? Those from Greece? Or must these peoples (especially Spaniards and Portuguese) have mixed with native American tribes to become "latino" before they can be considered "people of color?"

What offends me about the "white" in white privilege is that it is much too fuzzy. Latinos from Brazil, and especially lighter-skinned latinos from Mexico, consider themselves "white," and "white privilege" in Mexico is almost certainly a more defined phenomenon that it is in the United States--a very high premium is put on light skin in Mexican culture.

Similarly, when we refer to all other groups than northern Europeans as "people of color," this becomes too varied a moniker to mean much of anything. Using "Caucasion" and opposing this term to "people of other racial heritages" would be more accurate. But we don't get to reinvent the history of the academic discussion concerning "white privilege."

All this makes me unsure how this article should be developed. The article seems to be a combined effort; it introduces the term "white privilege" in the context of an academic discussion. Yet very soon it breaks into a discussion of "white privilege" as a defined phenomenon. For example, the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede (still unsourced, by the way), goes far beyond any academic discussion and presents "white privilege" as a reality :

However, white privilege may be seen as existing to some extent wherever the dominant culture is white, as in countries with legacies of colonialism such as South Africa, Australia, or New Zealand.

I think, as editors, we need to decide where we are going with this. Apostle12 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything for us to decide. I think we report what reliable sources have written about the subject. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course we need to decide. That's what editing is all about. Apostle12 (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Lede rewrite

Current:

Within the academic discipline of critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from their position in society as on the societal disadvantages that people of color experience. White privilege may be defined as the "unearned advantages of being white in a racially stratified society", and white privilege is seen as a powerful legacy of racial identity that is often unacknowledged by whites. Much of the English-language scholarship on white privilege focuses on American and European societal conditions, since inequality between whites and non-whites is a long-standing feature in these societies. However, white privilege may be seen as existing to some extent wherever the dominant culture is white, as in countries with legacies of colonialism such as South Africa and Australia.

White privilege differs from overt racism or prejudice, where a dominant group actively seeks to oppress or suppress other racial groups for its own advantage. Instead, theories of white privilege suggest that whites view their social, cultural, and economic experiences as a norm that everyone should experience, rather than as an advantaged position that is maintained at the expense of people of color. Scholars of critical race theory argue that this normative assumption constrains discussions of racial inequality: explanations of racial inequality are limited to factors specific to disadvantaged groups comprising people of color, who are viewed as having failed to achieve the norm. Thus solutions focus on what can be done to help people of color achieve the 'normal' standards experienced by whites.

Scholars who promote theories of white privilege claim that racial inequity cannot be resolved solely by looking at the life conditions of disadvantaged people of color. They suggest that solutions to problems of racial inequality can only be achieved by expanding the discussion to include the implicit societal advantages that whites enjoy.

Proposed:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to advantages that white people enjoy in some societies. It often connotes unspoken advantages, which white people may not realize they have. These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth, greater presumed social status, and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely. White privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving one's self as normal. It can be be compared and combined with male privilege.

Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept of "white privilege" to analyze how racism and racialized society affect the lives of whites. The term is often used in the United States and Europe but also applies in other places with histories of racial stratification after colonialism, such as South Africa and Australia. It was popularized by Peggy McIntosh through a 1987 article titled "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack". McIntosh's article suggests that white people need to understand how racial inequality includes benefits to them as well as disadvantages to others.

Looks good, but why say "in some societies" are there societies anywhere where people of White skin are the bottom of society? Know and unKnown, it is sometimes they pretend they do not understand. so both states need to be stated known and unknown to be benefiting from .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inayity (talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

the Ainu.

This lede looks fantastic btw

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I am confused. Who is proposing this change to the lede?

In any case I do not think it is an improvement. It refers to white privilege as an uncontested reality rather than a concept discussed within the academic discipline of critical race theory. And it goes further, adding male privilege to the mix. And "whiteness studies"......really?!

Much of value in the existing lede is eliminated entirely. This is a radical change that should not be implemented. Apostle12 (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I drafted this change and did not append a signature. I feel that this lede would do a good job of conveying the meaning of "white privilege" to a curious reader. I don't think anyone benefits from peppering the language with "alleged" or by restricting the scope of a widely-used term to a small academic discipline. I would note that the lede for "Love", for example, does not use mitigating language even though some people will tell you they don't believe in it. You don't see "supposed" or "alleged" in every other sentence in the lede for "God". I concur with UseTheCommandLine's invitation you to craft a section on criticisms of the white privilege concept. If this section existed, it would be reasonable to add some content on "criticism" to the lede! But again, I think it serves everyone if the concept itself is well articulated—along with the criticism—instead of muddled with mitigating language. Thanks & peace. groupuscule (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that a rather extensive section on criticisms used to appear in the article, however they have been systematically reduced and eliminated so that the article now has only one voice, a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Apostle12 (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that there are some people who benefit from peppering the lede with "alleged" and other mitigating language -- those people who want to violate WP:SOAP in order to try and undermine the legitimacy of the academic fields that utilize this concept. I don't think anyone else benefits from such language. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is any violation of WP:SOAP, it is on the part of those who want to promote the absolute legitimacy of the term "white privilege." The lede as presently constitituted has no mitigating language, save for the first clause of the first sentence. "Alleged" does not appear. Apostle12 (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

On multiple occasions, I have suggested that you marshal some reliable sources, in order to offer this view in a form consistent with WP's standards. Thus far you have failed to produce a single one, despite multiple commitments of help with writing such a section, and including a mention in the lede, from the very same people you are accusing of violating WP:SOAP.

I think that the proposed lede is good and should be run. Since you produced it, Groupuscule, I would be happy to see you swap out the language; though I am aware of WP:OWN, I think it only polite to allow you to make the actual changes you have proposed. However, I will be happy to do so myself if it doesn't matter to you. Apostle12, to once again reiterate, I think we all agree you are more than welcome to add to the lede, should you ever come across reliable sources reflecting your viewpoints. I have made some efforts to search for scholarship of this type but have come up quite short, which could be for any number of reasons.

I note that the previous "criticism" section was two sentences, and contained two references, and both remain in the article. I think that a proper "criticism" section, in order to be significant enough to put a reference in the lede, should be substantially longer, at least a full paragraph. The lede is there to summarize the remainder of the article, after all.

I would very much like to urge everyone to pay attention to the other parts of the article, which need some work. I need to take my own advice, certainly, and will hopefully get some time to do so in the near future.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

IIRC older criticism sections suffered from problems of undue weight and extensive content that was supported by unreliable sources or by no sources at all. (Apostle12, please follow these links and note that we have to consider more than just NPOV when determining whether to include the source.) As for the proposed lead, I appreciate it for its brevity and clarity and fully support its inclusion in the article. Thank you for the hard work, Groupuscule. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't see "supposed" or "alleged" in every other sentence in the lede for "God". That is an excellent point, considering that in the case of God the vast majority of people in the relevant field (i.e. philosophy) are atheists, and in the case of white privilege it is hard to find a relevant authority who doubts that it exists. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Those who doubt "white privilege" exists, or even those who believe the importance of "white privilege" has been exaggerated, by definition never become "relevant authorities" in the field. Apostle12 (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are being literal, this is wrong; there is nothing inherent in the position that white privilege exists that makes those who espouse it unqualified. If you are insinuating that your fellow editors refuse to admit anyone who says that the importance of white privilege has been exaggerated, this is obviously wrong; the Shelby Steele quote has been a part of the article for ages. (FWIW I added that part myself.)

At one point I was the sort of editor who could be easily beaten down by someone who said that this article needed to include statements for which they had no reliable sources, and I looked for those sources myself. I am no longer that editor, because (a) I deserve more respect than that, and (b) I have already done the search, and my best efforts were fruitless. If you want something included in the article, accusing your fellow editors of bad faith, lashing out at them, or insulting them is not the way to do it. The way to do it is, as some of your other fellow editors have told you already, is to conduct the search yourself and find enough reliable sources to meet the due weight threshold.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It is you who are insinuating that I am insinuating anything. I am objecting to your attitude; that is all. Apostle12 (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

Thank you, Apostle12, for putting together the criticism section. I would like to encourage you to provide sources that are more compliant with WP:SOURCES, WP:IRS (Specifically WP:NEWSORG), and i think quite importantly, WP:FUC since substantial quotes are taken from non-free sites. Despite them being blockquoted, I think referencing and summarizing the original scholarship that these individuals have produced is a much better course of action than simply quoting non-free news media sources. Once we have something more substative, we can break it out into the individual sections, per WP:CRIT, WP:NPV and WP:UNDUE, the latter of which has been noted to be a problem, and i think applies here given the thinnness of actual scholarship. Good starting points, but this is not the whole story, and I would encourage you (Apostle12) to keep digging. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure how WP:FUC might apply here. Could you please explain. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

You have used verbatim quotes-of-quotes from an interview, from a news organization, rather than sourcing scholarly material summarizing it for a general audience, and providing references.

The bar is quite high for using non-free material, as it probably should be given current norms regarding copyright. It also can help to refine one's argument; if your summary is "this person has made comments on a tv program to this effect" rather than blockquoting, then that highlights the fact that you should probably do more work on finding scholarly material to support your argument.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Apostle12, if I believed you had finally done substantial work in finding reliable sources to support the claims you believe belong here, I would be as enthusiastic UseTheCommandLine is. However, I remember most of the content to be old material, which was deleted because of issues with unreliable source, sources given undue weight, and sources that upon closer examination did not support the claims that were being made. When I deleted some of this content (I was not the only one deleting questionable material at that time), I often recognized that Wikipedia is a work in progress and believed that my fellow editors had added the content in good faith and gave them an opportunity to provide better references before the content was deleted. In some cases no one -- not even the person who inserted the material -- came to the defense of the words that had been added. In resurrecting this content you have shown profound disregard for Wikipedia's policy on consensus and other policies. I will await feedback from our fellow editors before deciding how to handle this situation. In the meantime I strongly encourage you to do as UseTheCommandLine has suggested and dig for better references so that we do not have reason to delete it wholesale. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not all of my references can be considered unreliable. Some of the old material seemed to have been deleted because of dead links, so I found links that are alive and current. I did not just copy old material; I used some old material to provide leads to a fresh take on the issues involved, and I rewrote the entries, providing current links. Some of the material is entirely new, and some material constitutes a more coherent exposition of the views expressed (e.g. Steele's entry). If you go over yesterday's discussion, no mention was made that the "Criticism" section as it appeared in 2009-2010 was eliminated for due cause; in fact it was described as much less extensive than it actually was. Meanwhile, since I might suggest you review WP:OWN, especially referring to your statement "I will await feedback from our fellow editors before deciding how to handle this situation." Apostle12 (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that at the very least most, and perhaps all, of the sources you have added do not meet WP:SOURCE guidelines. I was inclined to give the benefit of the doubt simply because it appeared you had done some work in trying to be constructive in your edits (at the same time acknowledging that deletions can be productive in therms of WP's mission). I think a temporary criticism section would be fine (WP:IGNORE) if it furthered the mission, which is an encyclopedic article, and my rationale was a criticism section could be a kind of staging area, where we could then break out the individual claims and sources into their more appropriate sections.

Even though I don't have time to dig through the history as much as I'd like right now, if what Marie Paradox says is true about these sources being previously referenced and then deleted, then I have no other choice than to conclude that you are disruptively editing. Since we have already had a number of issues with you, including referral to WP:DRN I think the next step is probably an RfC/U? I am keen to prevent an edit war, so I would like to believe that Apostle12 would be willing to listen to reason, and that progression through this process will be unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UseTheCommandLine (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am not disruptively editing; all I want is a better, more NPOV article that expresses the full range of viewpoints re: "White Privilege." As mentioned, I had every reason to believe that the previously deleted information might have been deleted because of dead links or because it was poorly written; I provided fresh links, and rewrote as necessary. Surely you cannot seriously be suggesting that editors familiarize themselves with the full history of previous edits before adding material to an article; if that were the case all Wikipedia editing would stop immediately. As for previous "issues" with me, these seem mostly to be based on the fact that I disagree with your approach in this article; to wit, you seem to want the article written with a single, white-privilege-positive voice, and you brook no disagreement. I am perfectly willing to listen to reason--that does not mean I will always agree with your conclusions, or you with mine. Apostle12 (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I mean no offense by this, but your assurances mean little in the face of your behavior.

I also think you are over-personalizing this, which seems to be a consistent pattern for you based, again, on your behavior. Your entire recent history of editing this article started with a WP:3RR violation, and the fact that you make assertions that other editors' issues with your behavior are based in disagreement with your stated positions suggests that you will continue your disruptive behavior.

This is an issue because, as I keep pointing out, there are other sections of the article that probably deserve substantial revision. until yesterday your efforts were focused on minor, superficial edits to the lede and lengthy discussions on talk pages, both here and personal, rather than doing the work necessary to produce a high quality article. This sucks the air out of other editors' attempts to improve the article, because they are frequently dealing with you and your behavior. You do not appear to be interested in interacting meaningfully with your fellow editors, and retain a hostile attitude despite our repeated, civil or even conciliatory attempts to help you be more constructive in your edits.

While I am not suggesting that all editors familiarize themselves with the entire history of an article, it took me no more than 5 minutes (if you need additional detail, please post on my talk page) to find out the previous criticism section links had been integrated elsewhere in the article, and i think that, particularly with controversial positions, it is important to at least make a passing effort to not just find proper sources but to integrate them in a way that is not so obviously, again, a violation of WP:SOAP. There are loads of weasel words in the critcism section you offered, and we've already had this discussion, even sending it to WP:DRN, so all i can conclude is that you're either unable or unwilling to make a serious effort to edit this article in partnership with your fellow editors, rather than as an opponent.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You wrote, "Your entire recent history of editing this article started with a WP:3RR violation." Untrue; I have never edited in violation of WP: 3RR. Apostle12 (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

While you are at it, Apostle12, if you want to retain the content you have reinserted, then I think it is only fair for you to explain how the issues that originally led to their deletion have been resolved. For example, if material was deleted because we did not find it reliable, you could point us to evidence that it is. I do not think it would be fair to make your fellow editors do a lot of busy work we have already done, if you are going to insist that the new Criticism section remains. You can find previous discussion about some of the sources on this Talk page. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You not supposed to put a Criticism section on wikipedia as a section of critique violates NPOV. All of that undue content and fringe justification and denial of privilege needs to be within the main body of the article, or it can all be deleted. WP:STRUCTURE The article on racism doesnt have it, no A class article does.--Inayity (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Two editors, specifically UseTheCommandLine and Marie Paradox, have been suggesting that I write a "Criticism" section for some weeks now. In fact I have been challenged by both editors for not writing a "Criticism" section. Following their suggestion, and pursuant to their challenges, I wrote such a section. Yet now there are objections that no such section should even exist. Which is it? Apostle12 (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note comment by editor EyePhoenix on March 12, 2012:

Criticism

What happened to the "Criticism" section of this article? Like it's parent "critical race theory", "white privilege" is controversial and debated. Yet very few of the challenges once included remain in this article. I didn't have time to examine the entire history, but it has the appearance of, pardon the phrase, some whitewashing by select editors. EyePhoenix (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously some editors are not so pleased that the article has been stripped of effective challenge. And EyePhoenix is correct: "White privilege" is controversial and debated. I know of no other way to introduce such challenges than to include them in a separate section, which I have renamed "White privilege theory under challenge," which is more to the point than broad-based "Criticism." Apostle12 (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Disclosure: I have contacted several editors who have voiced support for a more NPOV approach and asked them for their input on this very important issue. Apostle12 (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The one rule that trumps everything is the rules of Wikipedia, you cannot have a critique section. Do you notice that critique section almost consumes the topic. might as well start another article called White Privilege does not really exist(I am joking cuz then someone will do it. it should be balance, notable not Tick for Tack. I think you should read the rules Do you think changing the title changes what it is? A Dog by any other name still barks and chases sticks.. --Inayity (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit hasty. Bold, revert, discuss. There might be a better staging area for this than in the article itself? UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I changed the name of the section because I thought the new name more appropriate; obviously I am not hoping to slide by on anything, and my goal is total transparency. Find myself in agreement with UseTheCommandLine that the present section might be used as a staging area. Hard to imagine how the content might be included in other sections, however, since the article as currently written allows no room for the fact that there is widespread doubt regarding the legitimacy of "white privilege theory." Apostle12 (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, meaning no offense, but you have thus far failed to marshal the necessary scholarship to support the "widespread" part of that statement. That is exactly what I and others have been pressing you to do, support that statement with the appropriate sources.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Apostle12, I have never suggested making a criticism section. It is my understanding that though criticism sections are not outright forbidden, they are often strongly discouraged for a variety of reasons. The old criticism was tagged, because editors here wanted to see the material it contained integrated into other sections (and that is what ended up happening to the well-sourced material it contained). When you recreated the criticism section, you were flouting consensus in more than one way.

Even if not all of the material you have included is undesirable (I am not convinced that is the case), why have you included so much that is? Inserting a lot of cited references in the article in the hopes that some small portion of them will be acceptable according to the guidelines is an efficient way to edit. And based on your responses so far, it will be your fellow editors -- not you -- who are left with the burden of sifting for gold, it seems that this is also a very inconsiderate way to edit.

And, yes, the existence of white privilege is "controversial and debated", but does any of the debate occur outside lay discussions and the fringes of academia? If you hope to convince us that the answer is, "Yes," you need to take an approach very different from the one you have been taking so far.

For a variety of reasons, including the fact that your response to the problems with the section you have created has been to remain tendentious here instead of fixing the problems, my recommendation to our fellow editors is that we delete the entire section. And here are some recommendations for you:

1. If you want to make radical changes to the article, first post a draft of the article you want to see to your user space, solicit comments from your fellow editors, and give them enough time to respond before making the changes. (I am not sure what the ettiquette around this is. I often impose a rule on myself that I will wait at least 48 hours before making an edit I suspect will not be received well -- or even one that is likely to be received well, if the changes are far-reaching. In practice it ends up being significantly longer than 48 hours.)
2. Be your first critic. Personally I take measures to insure that unreliable sources do not get into the article, like checking to see that the source or its author can be found with Google Scholar. (More accurately, this tends to me the first place I go to find sources, so the problem is pre-empted.) You should also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliable sources, and original research and follow them. When I feel that other editors are not doing this, I become irritated, and I imagine I am not the only one.
3. Brace yourself for the possibility that you are not going to find enough reliable sources that make claims as bold as, "White privilege does not exist." This article has had a lot of intelligent, hard-working editors who have searched and found relatively little in the way of such content.
4. Take a look at the sort of edits that have been welcome here and consider putting more of your time and efforts into changes of the same sort. For example, some editors who felt the article was unfairly biased changed the wording to make it less POV to their eye (see Words to watch), and these edits were seldom, if ever, challenged. (But note that if a viewpoint is supported by the vast majority of relevant authorities, Wikipedia requires that we present it as authoritative.)

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

- I agree with Apostle that the article is without objectivity or criticism. It seems a waste to argue whether the criticism should exist in a separate section or be incorporated throughout the article. The important point is - it is absent. Whether there is a great deal of 'reliable' sources of criticism of this subject at this time, the article still reads as an accepted scientific theory and not political rhetoric. As I see it, therein lies the problem. There should be more challenges to the reliability of the largely unscientific sources used to create this article. But since these politics have secured their place in Academia they are now accepted. I don't see much within Wikipedia's rules to address this, so at this time good writing that avoids Original Research may be the only way to balance this problem. It would sure be nice to see editors be a little less contemptuous and more helpful in their discussion. EyePhoenix (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that EyePhoenix (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Integration in progress

I have no idea why someone would create a separate section to tick for tack attack points made above it. So I have integrated the objects (hedged) without the "department of this and speaking a this seminar" and other flamboyant decorative. Also note just because someone says something does not mean we include it, it must be notable. An anecdotal recollection of one person experiences, and one man says sections are out. An entire section for one persons POV. Straw man arguments are out, like "I am anti-racist, how can I profit from White privilege?" (white privilege does not mean the benefactor of the White skin is themselves a racist!!) --Inayity (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Integration is fine, provided there are appropriate places to accomodate the material. There were no "straw man arguments" in the material I added--what you wrote is, in itself, an example of setting up a "straw man." Apostle12 (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Peggy McIntosh

Apostle12, as has been pointed out to you before, Dr. Peggy McIntosh's piece is one of the most widely cited[5] sources on white privilege, which is prima facie evidence that what she says deserves to be given weight in the article. Please do not take a cavalier approach to deleting content that references her work, and consider discussing the matter here first. It does not matter if any of us thinks there is sufficient evidence for the statements contained in her work; what matters is that she says is an indication of authoritative viewpoints on the matter. Please review Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliability, and due weight. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of McIntosh (whose ideas I agree are important for this article): I found an interesting critique of McIntosh and "whiteness studies" on the grounds that people of colour have been describing whiteness and identifying white privilege without being credited with founding a discipline. (Sadly not surprising at all.) Not sure if this material would moreso belong here or at whiteness studies. groupuscule (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this. FWIW there have been similar criticisms of Tim Wise. On the surface it seems this is more relevant to whiteness studies, but it cannot hurt to further discuss what it means for white privilege. Also, in the absence of Wikipedia guidelines to the contrary I think this should encourage us to be mindful of how and to what extent the voices of people of color are (not) being represented in the sources used to support the article's content. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A truly hopeless article with truly hopeless editors

The problems begin early with the totally false first sentence of the lede: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to advantages that white people enjoy in all societies."

Really?! In China? In Vietnam? In Burma? In Japan?

Before the lede was altered during this past week, there was some hope. No longer. Apostle12 (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the "all societies" wording either. The recent revision is OK; alternatives might be explored. Do check this out:

Second, there is a global racial hierarchy that helps to shape the power and the prejudices of each race. At the top of this hierarchy are whites. The reasons are deep-rooted and profound. White societies have been the global top dogs for half a millennium, ever since Chinese civilisation went into decline. With global hegemony, first with Europe and then the US, whites have long commanded respect, as well as arousing fear and resentment, among other races. Being white confers a privilege, a special kind of deference, throughout the world, be it Kingston, Hong Kong, Delhi, Lagos - or even, despite the way it is portrayed in Britain, Harare. Whites are the only race that never suffers any kind of systemic racism anywhere in the world. And the impact of white racism has been far more profound and baneful than any other: it remains the only racism with global reach.

— Martin Jacques, "The global hierarchy of race"; The Guardian, 19 September 2003.

Need I even point out that this is a second WP:NPA violation?

Well, just to be obvious about it, I have.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Certainly this was not written by a white man who has spent time in Japan, in Hawaii, or a black ghetto anywhere in America. Apostle12 (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If it is any comfort know that most of the news of the world, the opinions, the articles on Wikipedia, the books on Africa and Asia, are however written by "A white man" kind of proves the point of the entire article your self -reflective anecdotal remarks. --Inayity (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, don't quite understand your post. Does Wikipedia have a "whites only" policy?

BTW, why do you assume my remark was "self-reflective?" I wrote "white man" because anti-white racism in many societies is experienced differently by white men than by white women, and its manifestations are far less subtle than those of "white privilege"--e.g. white men being banned from Tokyo's business hotels (a common practice), or white men being attacked (sometimes killed) for venturing near Hawaii's "Kanaka Only" beaches, or (what every white man in America knows) being subject to violent attack if present in the black ghetto of any American city, especially after nightfall. Apostle12 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BIAS -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

UseTheCommandLine, thank you for the quote. Considering the history of colonialism, I imagine it would be much easier to find verifiable sources to support the view that white privilege exists worldwide than it would be to find comparable sources to support the view that white privilege exists in every last society (a stronger claim). -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that was more likely Groupuscule's contribution, as it was not mine. good quote, nonetheless. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You both have made a number of valuable contributions to the article. Thanks to both of you! -- Marie Paradox (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything in the body of the article to support the view that white privilege exists in every society? Only if the zombie apocalypse has come, and the US, South Africa, and Brazil are the only three countries that have yet to fall. (Apostle12, did you know something I did not, when you said that working on this article was "hopeless"?) I am not exuberant about "in many societies", but I suppose that is better than saying nothing about scope and leaving others to assume that white privilege exists in every society. Do we have any other suggestions? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A return to the language that prevailed before recent wholesale revision of the lede would be nice.

Within the academic discipline of critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from their position in society as on the societal disadvantages that people of color experience. White privilege may be defined as the "unearned advantages of being white in a racially stratified society", and white privilege is seen as a powerful legacy of racial identity that is often unacknowledged by whites.[1] Much of the English-language scholarship on white privilege focuses on American and European societal conditions, since inequality between whites and non-whites is a long-standing feature in these societies.

That language had evolved over time and better conveyed what "white privilege" is about. Apostle12 (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What specific elements of the new lede would you like to see changed, and how? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is so much! I will attempt an analysis as time allows. But right now duty demands that I make my way to work.

Truly, the previous lede was so far superior that I would seriously suggest reverting to it. Apostle12 (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Apostle12, I totally understand about having to pay the bills, but when you do have the chance, could you perhaps use bold or italic emphasis to indicate which parts of the old lead you would like to see restored? I think it would help me at least to see at a glance and get a better idea of what sort of compromise we might be able to work toward. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not exactly helpful advice. If you are unable to articulate a coherent criticism, then your suggestion is arbitrary, and hints at WP:OWN. There is no time limit on this, as WP:WIP says. I would be inclined to say, once again, that other sections of the article need more attention than the lede; we can always come back to it.

I would like to propose, Apostle12, that you and I (at least, others are welcome of course) choose another section to work on together. I would propose the one on Justice, which has had a "requires expansion" tag on it since late 2010. I dont think this talk page is the most appropriate forum for the initial bigger edits, but perhaps your or my sandbox could be used to that end. After some editing and expansion, we will post sections of it here for additional comment.

How about it? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

With global hegemony, first with Europe and then the US, whites have long commanded respect, as well as arousing fear and resentment, among other races. Completely ignorant. What global hegemony did Sorbs or Kashubs enjoy? What respect is there in Polish jokes. What fear and resentment do Czechs create? --Questionentity (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Pro or against?

Who is pro white privilege and who is against it? It's the fundementals really. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Adam

Hi, Adam. Welcome to the white privilege talk page. If you have not already done so, you might want to take a look at the talk page guidelines. In particular please note that the purpose of this page is to discuss how to improve the article; it is not for discussing the topic (white privilege) itself or what positions people take on the topic. Do you have any thoughts on how we can improve the article? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Lede

I've put back a passage from an earlier version of the article which gives a much more objective description of the theory of white privilege. It is written in the voice of an encyclopaedic narrator, and does not take any side in the debate as to whether "white privilege" is a valid or useful concept. It should be acceptable to everyone involved, as it clearly and concisely states what the theory is, and makes to hints as to its validity. This is important, as the previous lede stated the view of critical race theorists as fact. This is not Quantum Mechanics or the Theory of Evolution, but rather a concept in the social sciences which is not universally agreed upon, and which does not have anything approaching the same level of certainty as scientific theories; let's therefore refrain from stating its conclusions in an authoritative manner in the lede, but rather simply describe what the theory holds. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with this bunch of editors!Apostle12 (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is, above you, a protracted discussion about this, if you want to extend that debate it is one thing. it is not solved by adding back in reasonable doubt, esp when there is so much TK page on it. see Male privilege (which seems pretty beyond maybe - maybe not. I dont think after all those points were made we plan to return to " maybe it exist" It may not be Quantum Physics, but it is strange you talk about the Theory of Evolution-- is that now a fact? Discuss first as the lede was the source of much debate. --Inayity (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As it is, the lede is unencyclopaedic. It states the views of a section of academia as fact. Why is it not enough to just state what their views are? Why do we have to lend the voice of the encyclopaedia to them? The lede, as I modified it, was very fair to the theory, not disparaging at all, and stated the views of the theory concisely. We need to change the lede back to a neutral form; the version I posted is, I believe, a good start. (P.S.: Both quantum mechanics and evolution are about as close to scientific fact as you can get.) -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the religion of Islam a fact to everyone? But when you read that article it states the fundamentals of that belief as they are facts within the construction of the word "Islam." It does not insert mitagatory language for the purpose of some mythical encyclopedic NPOV. And that I believe is how wikipedia works. What is the definition of the thing in NPOV language. What you are suggest has nothing to do with NPOV. b.c the tone of this article is identical to the tone of all A-class articles across wikipedia on similar topics. See Ontology for example. (off topic) Evolution is anything but close to scientific for most people of faith, which is only 90% of planet Earth.--Inayity (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at the lede for Ontology, as you suggested, because it is helpful in considering our differing views on the lede for this article. The Ontology article begins, "Ontology (from onto- ...) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations." The lede makes no statements of fact, does not advocate a particular ontology, and simply states what the focus of the field is. Now take the lede I proposed: "In critical race theory, white privilege (or white skin privilege) is a set of advantages that are believed to be enjoyed by white people beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.)." This lede makes no statement of fact, but simply states what the concept of "white (skin) privilege" is in Critical Race Theory. Now take the lede you support: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to advantages that white people enjoy in many societies beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc)." This lede takes a particular academic position and states it as fact. Neither ontology nor the lede I proposed do that. As a comparison, take the article on Postmodernism. In the lede, you will find this definition: "In essence, postmodernism is based on the position that reality is not mirrored in human understanding of it, but is rather constructed as the mind tries to understand its own personal reality." However, it does not state, "Postmodernism is the recognition that reality is not mirrored in human understanding of it, but is rather constructed as the mind tries to understand its own personal reality." This is essentially the argument between us. I would like to see something akin to the first description of postmodernism - the one used in the article - and you would like to see something akin to the second description of Postmodernism, which states it as fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Thucydides411 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

- I have also seen this, but I do not believe it is a bad faith canvass. --Inayity (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no comment on whether the apparent canvassing was done in bad faith or on much else beyond what I have already said at Apostle12's Talk page.[6] -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but at the end he said he was not coming back to this article.But I guess that didnt exclude getting others to come to it.--Inayity (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked others, including Thucydides411, to consider returning to editing before I myself withdrew. I will continue to monitor this discussion, however I do not intend to resume editing until a more inclusive, NPOV attitude prevails. Apostle12 (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that a few editors are already trying to disqualify me from the discussion. Note that I expressed interest in working on this article on 16 July 2012. You can see this earlier on this Talk page. I hope that the accusations of canvassing were not made in bad faith, and that the editor who raised this issue simply missed my earlier post. Now that we have this behind us, let's move on to a substantive discussion of the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thucydides411, welcome to the discussion. Here's my take on these changes:

The theory of evolution is widely accepted by scholars and experts in the field, and fairly controversial among the general population. I believe that if you search the scholarly and popular literature on white privilege, you will find a similar pattern of agreement and disagreement. The existence of something called white privilege is the overwhelming consensus of people who study race relations. Indeed, it is the overwhelming consensus of people who study people, so much so that I also disagree with the restriction "within critical race theory". "White privilege" may be discussed "within critical race theory", but it is also discussed—and was originated—without critical race theory. This qualification, which has long been un-sourced, is therefore pretty misleading.

I would be very happy to see more editors contributing to this article by adding sourced content to any part of the article. It would be great if you wanted to tackle white privilege in Brazil, or research more about the history of the term "white privilege". I don't, however, see a lot of value in resurrecting a debate over the lede by insisting on the same unsourced claim that was used previously. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a mischaracterization of what the theory of white privilege is. It is indeed a concept which originated within Critical Race Theory. The idea that nonwhites are discriminated against in certain societies and under certain circumstances is not controversial, and has existed for a very long time. Similarly, the idea that, for example, poor whites have often been pitted against poor minorities in a way that benefits neither group has been thoroughly discussed in academia (note that we would still not state this idea as fact within the encyclopaedia, even though it has much broader support than critical race theory).

However, the following concept is not generally accepted in academia:

"White privilege is a set of advantages that are believed to be enjoyed by white people beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.). Theorists differentiate it from racism or prejudice because, they say, a person who may benefit from white privilege is not necessarily racist or prejudiced and may be unaware of having any privileges reserved only for whites. It sometimes connotes unspoken advantages, which, it is argued, white people may not realize they have. These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth, greater presumed social status, and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely. White privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving one's self as normal."

It certainly has a school of supporters, who are cited throughout this article, but it also has many detractors, who object particularly to the theory's rejection of the Enlightenment, and to its assertion that poor whites also benefit from what is termed "white privilege." Take, for example, this scholarly critique of Critical Race Theory, which takes objection to several of the sources cited throughout this article: "Race, Equality and the Rule of Law: Critical Race Theory's Attack on the Promises of Liberalism". Another prominent critique of the concept of identity in politics is here: "Identity Politics and the Left". You can be sure that Hobsbawm did not agree with the concept of white skin privilege presented here.

Theories in social science rarely have the support necessary to state them as fact. While in certain areas, there are groups of academics who reference one another and espouse the same idea, you will find other groups who reference one another and espouse a contradictory idea. In this case, you will find those who argue that the defining issue in what in the cultural left calls "privilege" is actually class. You will also find those who argue that poor Appalachian whites cannot be said to be privileged above, for example, middle-class blacks, as the latter enjoy higher social standing and regard. In other words, the theory we are discussing, which is narrower than what you are depicting, does not enjoy the universal support of academia.

This is very different from the case of successful theories in the natural sciences, which do achieve near-universal support, due to the more straightforward means available to scientists of testing their theories. This is why the situation regarding white skin privilege is not analogous to that surrounding evolution. You would be hard-pressed indeed to find a biologist of any stature who denies evolution, but within the fields of American social history and legal theory, you would not have much difficulty at all.

For this reason, it is important that we not state the conclusions of the academics cited in this article as fact. There is nothing wrong or disparaging about presenting theories in social science as such. We can say that white privilege is a concept used by Harris, Lipsitz, Roediger, and others, and explain what the concept entails. That should be fair, and I see little reason for any editors here to object to such an approach. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

For those looking for evidence of a scholarly debate over white privilege, Eric Arnesen's article, "Whiteness and the Historians' Imagination" (sorry about the paywall, but most journal articles will be behind one), and the ensuing spate of responses [7] [8] and responses to those replies [9] [10] are a good place to start. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thucydides441, thank you for civilly making your case for changing the lead. I think that if you review the history of the article, you will find that edits that consist of changing claims like "X" to "So and so says that X" are among the most readily accepted changes to the article. But if you are going to make dramatic changes to the article, as by changing the lead, I for one would appreciate it if you followed groupuscule's precedent and post it here first so that your fellow editors have the opportunity to weigh in on it. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thucydides, thanks for taking the time to craft such a detailed response. I second Marie Paradox on your civility. Here are my thoughts:

• The articles by Hobsbawm and Pyle are relevant only tangentially to the question of whether white privilege exists. To my eyes, they seem to discuss strategies for legal and social change. We could make these relevant to the article if we wanted to add a section about combating white privilege. However, the question the concept's utility in legal settings does not bear on the issue of its social reality. I do not understand your claim that believing in the existence of white privilege constitutes a "rejection of the Enlightenment". It feels to me that you are saddling the "white privilege" concept with baggage that comes from Critical Race Theory as an outlook on legal systems.
• I repeat that although critical race theorists certainly use the term "white privilege", this term is trans-disciplinary and used throughout the humanities and social sciences. We have multiple sources that discuss the history of the term white privilege, and don't attribute or limit it to "critical race theory".
• I agree with you that "theories in social science have the support necessary to state them as fact". But I think at this point, the comparison of "white privilege" with a scientific theory breaks down. White privilege is a phenomenon, not a theory; it neither predicts nor explains, so much as describes. While the causes, consequences, and appropriate responses to white privilege may be controversial, its existence is not—again, among scholars. Compare, for example, feudalism, a social arrangement whose existence Wikipedia seems confident in, even though the definition of it is more in flux than is the definition of white privilege. Also see: slavery, deindustrialization, and ethnic group for social concepts that do not require this type of qualification.
• You state that I "would not have much difficulty at all" in finding scholars who dispute the existence of "white privilege"—yet in fact I do encounter this difficulty. I find literally hundreds of articles and books (and even academic journals) predicated on the idea that white privilege exists, and I cannot recall encountering scholarly publications arguing the contrary. Hobsbawm and Pyle don't discuss "white privilege".
• I agree that there are variations and exceptions to white privilege, that white privilege is modulated by class, geographic location, and countless other factors. I think it would make a good deal of sense to discuss these modulations in the article and in the lede.

Peace, groupuscule (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Additional scholarly articles, appended while I was writing this response, look promising—thanks for posting those. They may have greater bearing on whiteness studies, but I'm guessing they contain material related to white privilege also. groupuscule (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a disconnect between how white privilege is being discussed in this Talk page, and how it is discussed in the article. In the article, it is discussed in the context of Critical Race Theory and "whiteness" theory, focusing on the ideas of Theodore Allen and Noel Ignatiev, who worked on Critical Race Theory, and David Roediger, who kicked off the more modern area of "whiteness studies." The article is not merely about the idea that white people sometimes are the beneficiaries of societal advantages - it is about the theories of the people mentioned above. The articles which I have provided specifically critique these fields; Pyle attacks the field of Critical Legal Studies, Hobsbawm criticizes the idea that the group classifications used in the field are well defined, and Arnesen severely takes Roediger to task for his interpretation of American history in terms of the concept of whiteness. The views of Critical Race Theory and Whiteness studies are controversial in academia, and the theory of white privilege is a concept within these fields. It is important for the lede to put the concept in the proper context - the context which the body of the article itself presently gives. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I want to quote what I got from user:Groupuscule "White privilege" may be discussed "within critical race theory", but it is also discussed—and was originated—'without' critical race theory. Inayity (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This is in contradiction with the what the article says. The existence of racism is acknowledged nearly universally, and racism and discrimination are concepts which originated outside the fields of whiteness studies and critical race theory. The concept of white privilege is distinct from the recognition of racism, and originated within critical race theory and was further elaborated upon in whiteness theory, as the article states:

"Then, in 1965, drawing from that insight, and inspired by the Civil Rights movement, Theodore W. Allen began a pioneering forty-year analysis of “white skin privilege,” “”white race” privilege, and “white” privilege in a call he drafted for a “John Brown Commemoration Committee” that urged “White Americans who want government of the people” and “by the people” to “begin by first repudiating their white skin privileges.”[20] The groundbreaking pamphlet, "White Blindspot," authored by Allen and Noel Ignatin [Noel Ignatiev] in the late 1960s focused on the struggle against "white skin privilege” and significantly influenced Students for a Democratic Society and sectors of the “new left.”.[21] In 1974-1975 Allen extended his analysis to the colonial period with his ground-breaking "Class Struggle and the Origin of Racial Slavery: The Invention of the White Race" in 1974/1975,[22] which ultimately grew into his seminal two-volume "The Invention of the White Race" in 1994 and 1997."

Later on (after quoting a passage by W. E. B. Du Bois often given as an inspiration for the concept of white privilege), the article continues,

"This concept was later taken up by David Roediger in his 1991 book, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class.[25] Theorists associated with the journal Race Traitor, such as editor Noel Ignatiev, argue that whiteness (as a marker of a social status within the United States) is conferred upon people in exchange for an expectation of loyalty to an oppressive social order. This loyalty has taken a variety of forms over time: suppression of slave rebellions, support of whites-only unions, and promotion for police brutality. Like currency, the value of this privilege depends on the reliability of a white appearance as a marker for social consent. These theorists argue that with enough "counterfeit whites" resisting racism and capitalism, the privilege of whiteness will be withdrawn and prompt an era of social redefinition."

This is how the article describes the origins and development of the concept, and I think that this part of the article does a decent job of portraying the meaning of the term, "white privilege." The definition you are arguing for here in the Talk page is different from the definition elaborated on by the article outside of the lede. This is important, as white privilege, as it is discussed in the article, is a controversial concept in academia. If it were just the recognition of the existence of racism, it would not be, but when it is extended to a theory of privileges from which whites benefit, it enters the territory of contested social science. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much Thucydides. Really appreciate the informed analysis. Perhaps you will be able successfully to revise the lede to reflect this more nuanced point of view. Apostle12 (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I like the approach you are taking to shaping the article to incorporate more academic viewpoints. If nothing else, the sources you have presented are of a different calibre than are typically offered on this page to support the view that white privilege does not exist. However, I am still left to wonder how much weight this view deserves, considering that Bell and Nkomo say that the concept of white privilege is embraced by most scholars of race relations (see the recently added reference), and taking a look at Google Scholar results still suggests that the view that white privilege denialism is still very much a minority viewpoint.

I think it is worth noting that apart from Subsection 2.1 ("History") most of the article is about the modern phenomenon of white privilege. Wouldn't focusing on white privilege as it is theorized in critical race theory require us to drastically revise the article? Would revising the "History" subsection to clarify its relationship to the rest of the article be a better way to go?

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Denialism?" As with Holocaust "deniers?" This is what I mean by "covert." Apostle12 (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I too think that the word "denialism" does not capture the issue. Within a certain school of social and historical analysis, "white privilege" is a widely used concept. For people who work mostly within this school of thought, i.e. neo-Marxism, postmodernism and critical theory, rejection of the idea of "white privilege" may indeed seem like denialism. It is important to remember, however, that outside of these areas of sociology and history, the term is not broadly accepted, and thinking on race and its role in history may be very different. My concern is that the lede of this article states that there exists a privilege bestowed upon "whites" generally in many societies, which is a very controversial idea within broader academia. This is not a question of whether racism and discrimination are acknowledged in academia - they are overwhelmingly. "Privilege" is a different concept, however, which finds use in a particular school or set of schools of academia. This doesn't weaken or water-down the article - it simply gives readers greater insight into the meaning of this term. The history section does a reasonable job right now of placing "white privilege" in its context, but the lede does not. The history section should be a guide for the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Apostle12 and Thucydides411, could you suggest some alternative ways to succinctly express "someone who believes white privilege does not exist"? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The virtue of succintness must be weighed against the vice of inaccuracy, especially the associative inaccuracy of "denier" or "denialism." There are those who do not believe "white privilege" exists, those who doubt that "white privilege" is significant, and those who object mainly to the "privilege" aspect of the term. Significant distortions result when these differing points of view are lumped together under a single moniker. Apostle12 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will refrain from using the term "denialism" in this context. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Marie Paradox, I just wanted to add one comment on what you said about the history section vs. the rest of the article. I actually think that the history section is the strongest section in the article, and the most focused. It deals specifically with the idea of "white privilege," while several other sections range out into related, but somewhat tangential topics. There are much more detailed articles on racial diparities in the United States (see, for example, Racial inequality in the United States). We should try to focus this article on its topic more closely. Some of this information would be very useful in this article, but as it is, the article seems to be flying off in tangents, losing its connection to the specific idea of "privilege." We can discuss this after we've decided what to do about the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not read everything but I am getting the sense that the term "White privilege" is being treated as an entirely academic term (like institutional racism once was).-correct me if i am reading wrong. since then it has been a part of every day speech. Its meaning is know to many educated people not only academics in a lab. I therefore will return to it being a WEIGHT issue. What ever WP meant when it was coined and what it means today (per usage in google) is not the same. So schools of thought, Marx is one area in which it is used right now, it is not the only area, it is a term used in various fashions and that term is overwhelming accepted as a valid term in the same way as the term racism (which evolved since it was coined). People deny the extent of White privilege but they do not deny the reality of the terms construction White +Privilege. The lede is fine w/o any water down.Inayity (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You're making a distinction between two different uses of the term "white privilege." One is in academia, where it is discussed largely in the context of critical theory, where the term originated and continues to find most of its use. The second use which you distinguish is in common parlance, where people may colloquially refer to "white privilege." Here, I agree in part with Marie Paradox's earlier statement that, "And, yes, the existence of white privilege is 'controversial and debated', but does any of the debate occur outside lay discussions and the fringes of academia?" Among the general population, i.e. outside of academia, the existence and validity of the term "white privilege" is indeed controversial and debated. Inside academia, the term finds use largely in critical race theory and whiteness theory. Outside of these schools of thought, it is a controversial concept. To understand the dynamics of the debate, Arnesen's article and the responses, which I posted earlier, are a useful starting point. I can post more on this later (when time permits), but it would be helpful for you to familiarize yourself with that set of articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before, the overwhelming focus on the lede here is causing the rest of the article, some sections of which are in substantial need of revision, to be neglected. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I might point out that until mid-November the lede read as follows:

Within the academic discipline of critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from their position in society as on the societal disadvantages that people of color experience. White privilege may be defined as the "unearned advantages of being white in a racially stratified society", and white privilege is seen as a powerful legacy of racial identity that is often unacknowledged by whites.[1] Much of the English-language scholarship on white privilege focuses on American and European societal conditions, since inequality between whites and non-whites is a long-standing feature in these societies. However, white privilege may be seen as existing to some extent wherever the dominant culture is white, as in countries with legacies of colonialism such as South Africa[2] and Australia[3][4][5].

The recent, wholesale elimination of the previous lede, and the substitution of the current one, has led to this intensive discussion. Apostle12 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Makes no difference, that old version was rubbish. It is certainly not exclusive to CRT. And I agree with Commandline. time to move on to the bulk of the article cuz this laborious debate is going no where fast. And this happens all the time on wiki, fight over a lead at the expense of the bigger battle. the proposed additions are very low in significance, Weight issues and very fine points. and add nothing to the understanding of WP. Inayity (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That claim seems a bit tendentious, given that the focus predates that change, and can be traced directly to your own lede edits, which I might also remind you were the focus of a discussion at WP:DRN. At any rate, it would be really super great if we could all just try for a few days to make other changes to the body of the article, in order to make it better, before coming back to the lede. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I second the motion; recent discussions about the lead have not brought us any closer to finding a compromise. And haven't we been trying to make a lead that reflects the body of the article? Perhaps once we have worked on other parts it will be clearer to all of us what the lead ought to say. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to stay on topic for the moment. The lede is important, and I've raised what I view as an important issue. Specifically, I agree with others here (Marie Paradox and Apostle) that the concept of "white privilege" is "controversial and debated" among the public. I have also raised the question of its acceptance outside of critical theory, which is varied. I think we should address these issues before moving on. That does not preclude anyone from improving the article in other ways, but I think we should continue this discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:PERFECTION, the lead is not a train crash per wiki standards.--Inayity (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The lede states a controversial academic construct as fact. I'm not arguing for the article to be deleted, but for the lede to be accurate and impartial. It currently fails on both counts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

WP and WS (privilege and supremacy) section needed

I am noticing from reading (mainly African authors, who have a more personal experience with this issue).Ani That the two terms co-exist WP and WS. And a section may be needed to give some pro opinions on this, b.c often WP and WS are interchangeable, one helping the other. Also in some of the sections what is being discussed is WP which creates WS, and WS create WP. Inayity (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to ignore the fact that "white supremacy" as an ideology no longer enjoys any traction in contemporary America. It was roundly rejected, mainly by progressive whites, beginning with the American civil rights movement and today is promulgated only by a few fringe groups.

The dismantling of institutionalized racism was a direct result of wholesale rejection of the ideology of white supremacy, and this dismantling was complete by at least 1980. In fact the only institutionalized racism that exists in the United States today operates to the disadvantage of white people in the form of affirmative action and other programs that grant special favors to certain groups based on race--those of African American, Latino, Native American and Asian descent. It should be noted, however, that some Asian groups are specifically excluded from receiving these advantages, since they are considered "model minorities" whose educational and economic performance outstrips whites. For example, at Lowell High School in San Francisco, CA people of Japanese and Chinese descent must perform at extraordinarily high levels to be admitted, while those of Vietnamase or (especially) Hmong descent are favored for admission.

Contemporary systems of institutionalized racism exist in both the public and private sector, and they are designed to ensure that whites are denied any advantage, even if they come from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

It should be noted that one purpose of the Jim Crow laws that took hold in the American South after the Civil War was to provide "affirmative action" for white workers who were having a difficult time competing with newly freed, and highly skilled, blacks. It seems to me that systems of institutionalized racism always result in injustice, and backlash is a predictable result. Apostle12 (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong by that sounded a lot like your private opinion to me. (not a problem as I like to learn new stuff) But isnt Tim Wise progressive White. BTW, have a peep at all the books new and old discussing it. and also remember this article is not only for Americans and is not limited to the African American experience. Also remember there is a link (that I am not forgetting;historical or otherwise)which is very important, as they are synonymous terms.--Inayity (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The above is, to the best of my knowledge, an accurate disposition of the facts. The only personal opinion I offered appeared in the last sentence: "Systems of institutionalized racism always result in injustice, and backlash is a predictable result." Have noted it as such.

I think it is inaccurate to say that "white privilege" and "white supremacy" are interchangable terms. In fact the usefulness of "white privilege" as a concept may be rooted in the "invisible, weightless knapsack" analogy--those who would never entertain white supremacist ideology may still benefit from some degreee of "white privilege." Apostle12 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is better to say synonymous. Question to help the issue: I am in Africa and what I have noticed that despite European people being less than 10% of the population, when they advertise for employment or accommodation, etc, they always put their Race. i.e. "I am a White woman", now which is that WP or WS, in a country which has policies to favor Black people, (BEE) why would people still advertise their Whiteness. The only reason I am asking this is to iron out WP and WS. b/c I believe the WS cretes WP, and WP creates WS. (personal opinion was that the term was out of fashion). --Inayity (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Good to get the African perspective. With respect to why white people in Africa might state their race in advertisements, I'm not sure. Could be just a disclosure kind of thing, or perhaps they wish to appeal to personal prejudice, which is alive and well everywhere. I find that, while I strive to base my personal evaluations on character, there are many who do not. You use a lot of abbreviation; not sure what (BEE) means. Still can't agree that "white privilege" and "white supremacy" are either "interchangeable" or "synonymous."

Seems to me that some of this has to do with reputation. Here in America, blacks commit approximatley six times as many violent crimes as whites (assault, rape, murder), so in the public sector one must take race into consideration if there is no opportunity to discern character. The Reverend Jesse Jackson said it best: "There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about robbery and then look around and see it’s somebody white and feel relieved." Is this an example of "white privilege" or just real world pragmatism? Apostle12 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Black Economic Empowerment (South Africa). I promoise you they put their race b/c it helps them get the job. Ill b back to reply later. --Inayity (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

But affirmative action for white people still exists, albeit only under labels like "legacy admissions".[11] This is not off the topic of improving the article, as I have been meaning to ask folks here for a while now how we might include information about legacy admissions, first in last out, and the like. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We should look into the policies themselves and see how they are structured--at Harvard, Yale, Princeton. But also at traditionally black universities like Howard. Not sure there are "legacy admissions" at public universities like U.C. Berkeley. I think not, however if there is some legacy effect in the University of California system, by now it would constitute "asian privilege" more than "white privilege," since most campuses have been majority asian for quite some time now. Apostle12 (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There are major issues with the lede. It seems to me that the discussion on writing new sections is keeping other editors from considering these issues. I would like other editors to weigh in on the questions raised in the section above, "Changes to Lede," so that we may know how to proceed on the intro to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There is one thing you should not do, is try and force people to focus on what you determine is important. i dont think Wiki works like that Boss. So post this content in your own section, I am free to develop what I want on this page. And please assume Good faith. I see major issues with your nit picking about a lede at the expense of everything else. --Inayity (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been polite, and I don't appreciate your tone, which is highly condescending. I want to edit the lede to make it more accurate, but my previous edit was reverted. In the absence of a discussion to resolve the issue, it is difficult to move forward. I don't want to put time and effort into sourcing and writing edits that will simply be reverted once I am done, as I am sure you can understand. Naturally, depicting the article's subject accurately in the lede is not nit-picking, but vitally important to any good Wikipedia entry. If you do not want to think about the lede, or consider the literature disputing the claims in the lede, that is fine, but I also expect you then to refrain from reverting edits you do not like. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please write your proposed version here for review. I withdrew from editing this article because of the entrenched positions of the controlling editors. I hope you will have more fortitude, because I agree that the lede as presently written is inaccurate and deficient. Apostle12 (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Check it, I didnt completely revert your edit, I put it back, and then I was reverted. Just keeping the record straight. I was reverted--Inayity (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

When You find the wikipedia guideline to everything you just said, please let me know, until then respect the rules of this talk page and post your mission in the relevant sections. WP:TALK and remember (nothing personal- i respect your info, i do not like your assumption and pushing)but still WP:NORUSH, i.e. take a break, and let ppl refresh their brains.--Inayity (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Your attitude is "highly condescending" Inayity!Apostle12 (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly object to the inclusion of perspectives from "Yurugu" in the article. It is unadulterated racism; if we include this sort of material, we might as well throw in David Duke for good measure (this is not a serious suggestion, of course). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My copy arrives tomor so i will see what she is on about. --Inayity (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This particular book is held in quite a number of well respected academic libraries. The same cannot be said of Mr. Duke's writings. I would be interested to look at it myself, but in the absence of a copy, I would be inclined to say that it could be a useful reference based on that information alone. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"Yurugu" expounds an explicitly racist theory of the origin of European culture. Libraries can keep a copy on hand if they'd like, but we cannot include it in this article, unless we explicitly describe it as racist. We're not going to include phrenological theories on the cultural development of various peoples, and we're also not going to include Melanin theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Are we seriously considering the inclusion of such an inflamatory, self-discrediting source? The one favor Hitler did the world was to mostly rid us of this kind of "thinking." Apostle12 (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see any evidence you have that this book advances the theory you reference. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am now more interested in reading it, so by Weekend I will let you guys know, also if the book is so bad per Thucyidse411, then there would be academic refutations just like they are for Duke. Also you can peep it at Google books.--Inayity (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you now more interested in reading it? Just curious. Apostle12 (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A Google books search for "marimba ani melanin theory" reveals this as its first hit: "Encyclopedia of Black studies - Page 328". From the entry on "Melanin Theory":

Melanin theory is associated with the writings of Richard King, Frances Cress Welsing, and to some extent, Marimba Ani. There are several others who adhere to the idea that melanin influences an individual's spiritual sensitivity.

You can look at the page on Melanin theory to see how discredited it is. From the lede of that article:

Melanin theory is a pseudoscientific, racist theory, founded in the distortion of the known physical properties of melanin, a natural polymer and organic semiconductor. In humans, melanin is the primary determinant of skin color. People whose ancestors lived for long periods in the regions of the globe near the equator generally have larger quantities of eumelanin in their skins. Melanin theorists assert that the possession of greater quantities of melanin causes an inherent superiority of black people. Conversely, its lack demonstrates the alleged inhumanity and inferiority of white people. Some black supremacists justify supremacist assertions by assigning dubious properties to melanin based on pseudoscience and distortions of scientific fact or speculation. Scientists consider melanin theory pseudoscience; it has no credibility in mainstream medicine or science.

There are plenty of sources over at the Melanin theory article which discredit the theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

But you do understand that we are discussing WP, so that belief (if true) cannot rule her out as a expert on WP. It is like saying just b/c I believe in Aliens (and I dont), I cannot be a scholar on space craft or Quark Theory. I will check your links now. quick note " To some extent" we will need to judge her by the book on WP and nothing else --Inayity (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You used the word "rubbish" recently; that accurate describes the above.Apostle12 (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I move that we remove the claim and the corresponding citation. Assuming for the sake of argument that "whiteness is central to the European self-image", this is of no consequence in an article on white privilege unless the European self-image is the default or dominant self-image. And even if that is true, we would need to support the claim in a way that is not original research. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Good Food for thought Tim Wise:

Have a look at Tim Wise he is not mentioned in this article (correction this book is in Bib) and I think he is one of the main people today who actively talk about WP. So much so that he admits that the reason he can talk about WP is because he profits from WP, and many African voices are shut out b/c ppl like him have WP. White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son--Inayity (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have read much of White Like Me. The problem is that the bulk of it is anecdotal, which can be an effective way to make a point, but is not especially useful to editors trying to make a well-referenced article. It does contain the occasional gem, but in my opinion it is a better use of our time to read the academic papers accessible through Google Scholar. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

POV (December 2012)

I have put up a POV flag at the top of this page for the following reasons:

1. Lack of neutrality in the lede. The lede states the concept of white privilege as fact, when it is contentious both in academia and among the general public.

2. Cleansing of the Overview section of references to Critical Race Theory and Whiteness Theory. The Overview and History sections used to have a much more detailed discussion of the relation of the concept of white privilege to Critical Race Theory and Whiteness Theory. Groupuscule's recent edit moved these references down the page.

3. Use of phrases like "seminal work" to describe various articles and books developing the concept of white privilege.

4. Uncritical paraphrasing of racist sources, such as Marimba Ani.

This is a condensed list, but a more thorough examination of the article reveals many additional problems. The article as it is gives the impression that the concept of white privilege has near-universal support in academia, and gives undue weight to writers who support the concept. In the field of history, the "seminal work[s]" of Allen and Roediger on whiteness have received serious criticism, with some historians describing their work as "faddish" and "shoddy" ([12] [13]). There is a discussion earlier in the talk page (Changes to Lede) of the academic criticism of "white privilege," but other editors, rather than acknowledging the existence of academic criticism or responding to the sources I listed, decided to break off conversation on the lede. In order for the POV issue to be resolved, at a minimum, the issues raised here and in the "Changes to Lede" section must be addressed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of this POV flag. Apostle12 (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverting POV Tag

Thucydides411,

I will be reverting your addition of the tag. Here is my response to the issues you raise:

• Lead: The current lead is one that the vast majority of the editors approved of, and the majority of editors here are okay with not working on it right now. Also, you need to respect that whatever your and Apostle12's motives are it looks bad when an editor is gone for four months after contributing very little and then returns just a couple of weeks after an invitation sent out only to people who agree with the person who sent it and the invitee immediately takes up the pet project of the person who sent the invitation. It looks even worse when you[14] and Apostle12[15] have been asked to specify your points of disagreement or propose and alternative, and neither of you have been forthcoming; it looks as though you are taking an all-or-nothing approach in a process that requires listening and compromise. We do not want to give users the impression that it is acceptable to canvas or be tendentious editors to get what one wants.
• Groupuscule's recent edits: This is trivial and does not warrant the addition of the tag.
• "Seminal work": I recommend looking up seminal in the dictionary and seeing if you still believe it is a word we should avoid. If you do, change it to something that you do not see as POV. As I have told you before, changing wording to make the article less POV is the sort of edit that has been the least likely to be objected to.
• Ani: As I have already told you, I think the claim in question is irrelevant to the article. I will not object if you decide to simply delete it. But if you will not delete it, it does not warrant a POV tag. "P is racist; X says P; therefore we cannot cite X to support the claim that Q" is not good reasoning for editors to apply.

Finally, if you are inclined to add a tag again, could you try to be more transparent in your edit? Please do not say you are adding a tag to "this" page unless the tag is in fact only being added to the Talk page. And please give your announcement of it a heading that accurately describes the contents. (I would have never expected to see an announcement of an added POV tag in an edit labeled "Good Food for thought Tim Wise:".) --Marie Paradox (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Marie Paradox, you have been harping on "canvassing" for weeks now, repeatedly referring people to the obsessive discussion you began on my talk page - so obsessive, I quit editing out of total frustration with your covert attacks. My request that some other editors join the discussion was completely transparent; I announced it here and I clearly stated my reasons for doing so. Please let it alone already and just deal with the many substantive issues Thucydides411 has so patiently brought to our attention. Apostle12 (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Apostle12, I wish you had read Wikipedia's policy on canvassing, as one of your other fellow editors suggested weeks ago, because then you would see that transparency is irrelevant to the question of whether you were canvassing. I will be happy to drop this matter as soon as your decision to invite three editors, all of whom share your view, to return to this talk page stops having consequences for the other editors here. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Marie Paradox, are you making an accusation of canvassing? If so, then state it. My motives are clear: I object to the tone and balance of the article, and have attempted to constructively engage you and others on this subject. I actually provided an alternative lede [16], which was then reverted. I gave an explanation for the lede change [17], and then engaged in discussion of the change with other editors. Those discussions have been broken off by others, including yourself. The accusation that I have been a disagreeable editor is surprising - I have not been in the business of reverting other editors' contributions, and I have been discussing the issue with you and others here at length.

As it is, I cannot change the lede, as I know it will be reverted. The POV issues remain, however, and so should the flag, until they are addressed. I will address two of your points here in more detail:

• Groupuscule's edits have had the effect of further obscuring the origin of the term "white privilege," and the fields within which it is primarily used. From a number of comments in the "Changes to Lede" section, editors have expressed discomfort with the "baggage" of Critical Race Theory, and a desire to distance "white privilege" from that theory. I do not think this is a correct reading of the history of the term, or its present use in academia.
• Marimba Ani's racist view of the deficiencies of white skin isn't just one of several disparate views she holds. Her work is premised on a fundamental divide between soulful Africans and callously rational Europeans. Her entire framework for judging the world is racist, and her various statements on Europeans are outgrowths of this framework.

I am reverting your removal of the tag. I am hopeful that we can come to a compromise on the lede, and other neutrality issues in the article, but the tag is appropriate until these issues have been resolved. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the POV tag, though I do disagree with some of Thucydides411's criticisms. I think the flag most clearly signifies the contentiousness between editors here re: what constitutes substantial, scholarly criticism, and the scope of the article itself. Previously, when the mitigating language in the lede was introduced, I sought input from WP:MOS and perhaps we need to go in that direction. Perhaps we could ask for input from WP:Sociology, or WP:Discrimination, both WikiProjects which have an interest in this article. If a POV flag is what allows us to move forward on the rest of the article, I see no reason to dispute that. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have posted requests for assistance at WikiProject:Sociology and WikiProject:Discrimination.

I would also like to thank Thucydides411 for their substantial engagement with the Talk page and the WP:BRD process. (I use 'their' not to depersonalize, but because I do not know which gender pronoun you prefer. It feels a bit awkward though, so if you do have a preference, Thucydides411, please let your fellow editors know. I prefer 'he', for what it's worth) -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I support the POV tag. Apostle12 (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not for me to decide whether Apostle12 was canvassing, when he invited you here. I will point out, however, that one of Apostle12's stated reasons for inviting you and two other editors, as opposed to editors who might be more inclined to disagree with him, was that you "objected to the absence of any criticism of 'white privilege theory'"[18], and since returning your primary focus has been on including criticism.

As for the "alternative lede", it was, assuming your description of your edit was accurate, the same lead that we had had before the edit that the majority of the editors here approved of. I would have appreciated it, if you had tried to find a way to combine the strengths of both; as I said, all-or-nothing thinking is not the way to go here. When I saw that my patience had lasted longer than the patience of my fellow editors, I decided to move on; I wish you had done the same.

Having said all that, I will not revert your addition of the tag. I trust that you will welcome the reversion yourself once we do all we can to address your criticism without running afoul of Wikipedia's policy.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ani Yurugu - review on WP

I have just browsed quickly through Yurugu and unless there are massive sources (plural) of ref to say it is racist, the racist counter argument is out. If it is racist b/c one editor does not like its message--too bad, thats not why we are here. Here is a CRITIQUE, of her book Critique of Ani now no where in that critique does her detractor call her racist, or not an expert. The critique is inline with scholarly disagreement. I have seen some flaws, some typical Afrocentrism and assumptions in her work, and her orientation, none of that disqualifies her analysis which is very very deep.--Inayity (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the amazon review linked. I'm willing to support the inclusion of the reference, based on this. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I do wonder , Inayity, if you might be able to summarize Yurungu's position in a more substantial way than "self-image"? If it's as deep as you say I imagine this won't be very hard. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I will need time to do that, when I said it was deep I meant she aint playing around with her research, this is not garden variety garbage Afrocentric drivel. It is a THICK book with 1000s of ref, invaluable perspectives from a non-Eurocentric POV. And yes she has better things to say than the ref that was deleted (which was sourced from Mark Christian). ill b back. p.s. There is no overt mention of melanin, only ref opinions in the works of other. --Inayity (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not how many references she includes in her work. Her theory on race, Melanin Theory, is widely regarded as racist and pseudo-scientific. The first reference in the Melanin Theory article, which is actually generally supportive of the concept of white privilege and racial interpretations of history, also labels Melanin Theory as racist. I earlier cited one source on Marimba Ani and Melanin Theory. A second source is here. A third source, Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes specifically deals with Marimba Ani's views on race. On p. 247, S. R. Howe writes,

In Yurugu (Ani 1994) [Ani] sets out a sweeping, heavily documented critique of the entire structure of Western though and behaviour. Her title comes from a Dogon legend of a doomed, destructive, incomplete being, the rejected offspring of the Creator. This, of course, is her image of the European: the irony being that her source for the Dogon story is a European writer, Marcel Griaule. Ani's book has the dubious merit of carrying its relentless pursuit of racialized thinking to logical conclusions within its own structure, by having two separate Bibliographies and Indexes - one for 'Africans', one for others. This gross intellectual apartheid has certain logical difficulties, of course; its fencing off of 'Africans' (actually including hardly any African as opposed to Afro-American authors) seems to contradict the book's central claim that the basic division lies between Europeans and everybody else. [...] But her categorization has further, rather predictable problems. W.E.B. Du Bois, among many people of mixed descent, is placed in the 'African' Index and Bibliography, with scant regard for the French and Dutch ancestry of which he was actually rather proud.

In other words, this is a work of "racialized thinking," which engages in "gross intellectual apartheid." Howe goes on to deal with what he calls Ani's "wholesale" acceptance of the "Aryan myth," the idea that "racism might be 'a biological or other type of instinct' among 'Aryans'" (ibid.: p. 283). Given these sorts of views, I do not see how we can plausibly cite Ani as an expert on the views or thinking of Europeans. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you once again, Thucydides411, for raising the bar in this discussion. Apostle12 (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

REJECTED - That is one author's opinion of another author he is no Gospel expert on Ani. he is no greater than Tunde. JstorIt can be included. And Apostle, your little remarks are not inline with how a talk page is supposed to be use, this is not a boxing ring!--Inayity (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nor do I regard it as such. Your arrogance may be showing, once again...Apostle12 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. --UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Inayity, do you think you could find a reference by someone who (a) is more or less just as qualified as Ani, (b) is not as controversial as Ani, and (c) who more explicitly links their claims about European culture to white privilege? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think many of us involved in this discussion could benefit from reviewing WP:OUTRAGE and WP:ENEMY. I have found it useful. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this reminder. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In Yurugu (Ani 1994) [Ani] sets out a sweeping, heavily documented critique of the entire structure of Western though and behaviour(...)This, of course, is her image of the European Wait, wait. Nobody noticed this? She doesn't consider people in Eastern Europe to be europeans? Because they aren't Western by any measure. Or does it mean she doesn't consider them white? Can somebody explain? --Questionentity (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

White privilege of inmates in Auschwitz in regards to Japanese?

What was the white privilege of white inmates of Nazi German concentration camps like Poles, Czechs, Belorussians? How did their privilege manifested itself in regards to say non-white Japanese people? Would be grateful for explaining this question? Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Questionentity (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the talk page, Questionentity. Please note that this page is for discussing how to improve the article and not for discussing the topic (i.e. white privilege) the article is written about. Do you have any suggestions on how we could improve the article? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The article focus is on USA. What about white privilege in other parts of the world? How were white Poles or Belarussians privileged in WW2 compared to non-white Japanese for example?

Or more modern studies-how are white emigrants from Romania or Bulgaria privileged in UK compared to non-white people for example with Hindu, Pakistani or Japanese origins who live in UK? It would be good to include information on this in the article. --Questionentity (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

History of colonialism by white Europeans-false and borderline offensive generalization against a diverse number of people just because of their skin colour and geographical location

This statement is borderline offensive if not racist: Nevertheless, some people who use the term "white privilege" describe it as a worldwide phenomenon, resulting from the history of colonialism by white Europeans I am curious how people like Slovaks, Belarussians or Moldovans have a history of colonialism. Majority of white Europeans had no history of colonialism(in fact many were victims of colonialism like Ukrainians) and the above sentence is not only incorrect but offensive trying to blame a whole group of diverse and often unconnected people solely based on the colour of their skin and continent they come from. This sentence needs to be either removed or information added to it that only a few groups in Europe were connected to colonialism with majority not being involved.--Questionentity (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As another editor has helpfully pointed out, this is not the appropriate forum for discussion about the topic itself, but only about changes to the article. The talk pages tend to be more productive when the editors involved with a page are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and procedures, both in terms of WP as a whole, and in terms of this page (relevant policies can often be found linked at the top of the talk page, as you can see here.) A policy that seems particularly relevant, as I pointed out in a previous discussion, is WP:OUTRAGE. An essay, WP:ENEMY also seems appropriate to quote here.

I look forward to working with you on the page.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Currently the article contains misleading and false sentence that should be removed as it concerns a borderline racist statement against people with certain skin colour and continent origins. This sentence is historically incorrect(when did Lemkos or Slovaks have colonial empires?) and thus should be removed to improve the quality of the article. Many false and offensives sentences can be sourced but this doesn't mean they should be included in articles.

--Questionentity (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Questionentity, I think that somewhere in your objection there is a good edit waiting to happen. It is arguable that in the US and elsewhere it is not just Europeans that are taken to be the norm or the standard but Western Europeans. If we find a verifiable source, it would be good to include something about this and how it relates to white privilege in the article. However, I do not believe the sentence you are objecting to is problematic. I do not believe it means that all Europeans were responsible for colonialism (that is obviously not the case) -- only that the people responsible for the specific instances of colonization under discussion were European. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Questionentity, I am about to revert your changes to the lead. I do not think anyone here would say that what you have written about Eastern Europeans is false. There are at least two issues. The first is that you need to find a source that shows how what you have written relates to the topic of the article (i.e. white privilege). Second, it almost certainly does not belong in the lead. The lead is supposed to give an overview of the major points of the topic. Could you take a look at Wikipedia's policies on due weight and lead sections? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait, how can the fact that whole white nations were declared to be inhuman and sent to camps for mass murderer by Nazi Germany with its non-white ally Japan- not related to the concept of privilege of white people? This completely DUE--Questionentity (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are the problems I see with the added paragraph. First off the statement you added is not sourced. You need to make it sourced. Additionally it is making claims that should be opinions. If these were the opinions or official stance of the Nazi Germany government then it can be included in the article starting that these were merely the opinion of the Nazi Government. You'll find that people will not be reverting you if you were to present it as such. Also you may want this to be a separate paragraph or even section or even an entirely new article depending on the amount of sourced material you find. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A discussion of Nazism and white privilege is unlikely to be helpful. For an in depth explanation of why, see Godwin's law. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I find it extremely helpful and interesting. It is directly connected to the topic for obvious reasons. Godwin's Law doesn't apply here, as Nazism dealt directly with awarding privileged status to racial groups, including non-whites such as Japanese and whites such as Poles or Belorussians. No wiki article on privilege allegedly enjoyed by white people disregardless of their ethnic background can be written without this issue being mentioned --Questionentity (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Questionentity, due weight has more to do with how much weight it is given in academic/scholarly discourse than in whether it deserves weight by any other measure. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Marie Paradox is correct here. WP:UNDUE starts Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, ... it's about the sources, not the population mass. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Article should mention somewhere white population.

When you realize that the US is home to 225 million white American citizens of all descriptions it should put this in perspective. Most of what is said in the lede paragraph about 'white privilege' is equally enjoyed by Chinese in China, Africans in Africa, and in fact by the largest ethnic group in any country with rare exceptions, like pre-Mandela South Africa. A much more global perspective is in order. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Stuartyeates (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes the majority perspective in any geographical area tends to predominate. Apostle12 (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I know my comment above is true as a sociologist who has lived in several continents myself. But perhaps not even RSS would persuade armchair editors in ivory towers. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

What you know is irrelevant. What can be backed up with reliable sources is all that matters. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

New editors

I have posted at The Administrators' Noticeboard regarding the recent edits from new/ip editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UseTheCommandLine (talk • contribs) 03:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also posted at WP:SPI about this incident. Although I will be the first to apologize if I am wrong, the timing, choice of edited material, and behavior displayed by Questionentity make me suspicious of a WP:SOCK violation. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you mentioned me by name in your investigation, I must object. I have never used, and never intend to use, sockpuppets. You seem unable to absorb the simple idea that obvious defects in the article attract repeated objections that take a similar form from various editors. I will await your apology.

As for comparing my behavior and edits to the behavior and quality of edits offered by the new arrivals, I find myself a bit insulted. Apostle12 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed sources and the article and its basically only about USA, almost all the data is about USA

I have reviewed sources and the article and its basically only in USA, almost all the data is about USA. This should be clearly stated in the article, as it can make a false impression that its claims represent the whole world. --Questionentity (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I question the value of additing the geographical imbalance and globalize tags and especially of adding both, as this seems redundant. Why do we need both? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We do not need any, WP per most books is largely USA, SA and Australia. That is reflected. Would it be fair for us to add Europe and then someone comes and puts the tags because we forgot to mention the island of St Lucia? Or Syria? Worldview and Weight go together, I am sure many topics, depending on their global impact will be more unique to certain areas of the globe. We should add Europe but to flag the article with two tags for leaving it out is a little excessive. --Inayity (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We do not need any, WP per most books is largely USA, SA and Australia. Majority of white people don't live in USA, SA and Australia Inayity. You will find large numbers of white people in places like Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus, Austria, Serbia as well. If the topic concerns only people in this three countries this should be clearly defined instead of making unfair and ignorant generalization against people solely on basis of their skin colour. --Questionentity (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia are written by the weight of what sources say, this is WP:NOTa WP:SOAP. White privilege like Anti-Semitism is a complete term, not Anti and Semitic (as that means something else eg. Anti Semitic speaker) it is not white and then privilege. It is whiteprivilege and we are discuss that word/term per sources and nothing else. --Inayity (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If a term is used entirely in the US / Canada or the reliable sources only talk about it's use in US / Canada, that's all we can talk about in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That's because nearly all the sources to even mention the phrase 'white privilege' espouse a distinct pov, which is fine for them but not encyclopedic or neutral for us. I looked at a few of the sources that discuss it, one of them said that the phenomenon of 'white privilege' has historically been a barrier to the goals of socialism. The better part of these books appeared within the past decade, and before 1991 this kind of P.O.V. like "white privilege has historically been a barrier to the goals of socialism" was only to be heard from the likes of Jim Jones, ironically enough he was white. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In Europe

This is Wikipedia English (leaning to America), In Europe not everyone speaks English, so there will be other words for WP. Most books published on these types of topics are from America, so there is no way you can match America on topics such as race and WP. I am sure WP is rife in Kenya, but will we find the poor Kenyan farmer publishing treaties on the effects of WP on his social-development potential?-- I think not. Anyway the section has been started, poorly, but I started it to encourage others to contribute. It is outside of my abilities to write about Europe esp due to language barrier. --Inayity (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In Europe not everyone speaks English, so there will be other words for WP.Source please-is there any "white privilege" in Moldavia for example ?--Questionentity (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, everyone in Europe does not speak English and they have their own way of articulating WP, where it exist. WP is unique to multi-racial societies, i.e. there must be a significant Ethnic minority (Germany, UK, France, Dutch, etc). so I dont think they will be discussing WP in the villages of the Swiss Alps.--Inayity (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Since majority of countries with white people don't have significant non-white minorities will you be ok with stating that the theory of white privilege doesn't concern most countries with white population but only a few?

--Questionentity (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the link used in the lead a Reliable Source? Looks like no-longer maintained private page hosted on university server, not published by university at all

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/whiteness05.htm academic.udayton.edu

Is used in the first sentence in the lead. However if you go to the page you will see that it is no longer maintained and was moved to some other website, outside of university servers. Also by the looks of it it seems to be a private project by either student or teacher.--Questionentity (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Let us not revisit battles

Alleged Mitagatory Language. It seems (how I don't want to speculate) some people are hell bent on inserting a tone that cast doubt over the existence of WP.(its all in our heads) I will not waste time repeating the prolong contents of the discussion i have made ref to. In any event, Wikipedia does not need that language. Some people deny racism, and antisemitism the tone never says "some people think antisemitism is a problem"--Inayity (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your idea of "not revisiting battles" seems to be "Just get out of my way and don't bother me about compromising." "White privilege" is an idea. Within critical race theory it is an accepted idea. Outside of that field, it is not an accepted idea. To compare this to denying racism or denying antisemitism is to distract from the need to include various perspectives in the article. Your perspective has a place in the article. So do the perspectives of others.

By the way, the lede just keeps looking worse - a terrible jumble of nearly incoherent verbiage. Apostle12 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Example: Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is (fact for most people) suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage. A person who holds such views is called an "antisemite".(according to ref and popular usage)

Is Antisemitism a for everyone? No, some deny it. Does the entire world embrace the term? Obviously not, I am sure no one in Iran cares for it. But do we insert According to Some Antisemtism is against Jews?. Do we add worldview tags because it is really limited to certain areas of the world? No. Wikipedia reports on a term in its own space, WP is used enough to outweigh any hint that it is a. a social theory for some academics only, b. maybe, maybe not in existence. (I am sure there are other examples).--Inayity (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking to yourself...or should I say "muttering?" Apostle12 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am since seasoned wiki users are above talk page--Inayity (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(out)So what exactly is wrong with this edit[19]? How is in incorrect? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Inayity-if you want to debate Anti-semitism take it to its page and don't do it here. As to your starting comment, it is obvious that you are not neutral here and are advocating this theory as fact. In fact you are violating this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[2] Even sources that are used in this article and support the theory of white privilege(despite the fact that most white people in the world have barely anything in common with each other besides colour of their skin, and often live below the level of wealth in many Asian countries), even then-they admit that this a hypothesis or a theory. If you see this article as something that should propagate "truth" or correct the world-you are not realizing that this is not the purpose of wikipedia. --Questionentity (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Questionentity plese read WP:INDENT "It is said to accrue to very wide sections (indeed, even to majorities) of the population, as in the notion of “white privilege”" Darkness Shines (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"that white people enjoy in many societies"

That white people enjoy in many societies-this is not sourced and in fact incorrect as the text shows, there are 204 states, article mentions USA, Australia a South Africa. If there is no opposition to this, I will remove the sentence as it A-unsupported by any source, B-false. Comments welcomed-but do remember to back them up with sources. --Questionentity (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that although you are not obviously violating WP:3RR, you are edit warring. Please see WP:WIP. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. I will not do it immediately. Now-do you have something against removing this unsourced and false sentence?

--Questionentity (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There is substantial discussion about the issues you raise here on the talk page. I would encourage you to review it. I have posted at The Administrator's Noticeboard because I believe you to be edit warring. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Article protected

In response to a request at WP:RFPP, I have fully protected the article for 3 days. Please work out the content disputes amicably and constructively. More battling in the article after the lock expires will not be warmly received.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)