Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:47, 20 November 2012

Sociology Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 March 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 October 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 /_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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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". 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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."

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 /_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, </ref>

The source is an article by Hugh Murray, but not any of the Hugh Murrays who have Misplaced Pages 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 /_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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 or that Asians in the US are seen as the least "American"?

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.
• 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 /_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 Misplaced Pages 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 /_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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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, Misplaced Pages requires that we present it as authoritative.)

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:53, 19 November 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 exuberantt 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. 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)

1. Neville, H., Worthington, R., Spanierman, L. (2001).Race, Power, and Multicultural Counseling Psychology: Understanding White Privilege and Color Blind Racial Attitudes. In Ponterotto, J., Casas, M, Suzuki, L, and Alexander, C.(Eds) Handbook of Multicultural Counseling, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
2. ^ Vice, Samantha (7 September 2010). ""How Do I Live in This Strange Place?"". Journal of Social Philosophy. 41 (3): 323–342. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2010.01496.x.
3. Kowal, Emma (1 May 2011). "THE STIGMA OF WHITE PRIVILEGE". Cultural Studies. 25 (3): 313–333. doi:10.1080/09502386.2010.491159.
4. Larbalestier, Jan. "White Over Black: Discourses of Whiteness in Australian Culture". Borderlands e-Journal. Retrieved 9 November 2012.
5. Martin-McDonald, K (2008 Jan). "'Marking' the white terrain in indigenous health research: literature review". Journal of advanced nursing. 61 (2): 126–33. PMID 18186904. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
6. Neville, H., Worthington, R., Spanierman, L. (2001).Race, Power, and Multicultural Counseling Psychology: Understanding White Privilege and Color Blind Racial Attitudes. In Ponterotto, J., Casas, M, Suzuki, L, and Alexander, C.(Eds) Handbook of Multicultural Counseling, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
7. Cite error: The named reference Unpacking was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. Kowal, Emma (1 May 2011). "THE STIGMA OF WHITE PRIVILEGE". Cultural Studies. 25 (3): 313–333. doi:10.1080/09502386.2010.491159.
9. Larbalestier, Jan. "White Over Black: Discourses of Whiteness in Australian Culture". Borderlands e-Journal. Retrieved 9 November 2012.
10. Martin-McDonald, K (2008 Jan). "'Marking' the white terrain in indigenous health research: literature review". Journal of advanced nursing. 61 (2): 126–33. PMID 18186904. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
11. Jacob Bennett, "White Privilege: A History of the Concept", Masters Thesis (approved) at Georgia State University, May 2012.

• Start-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• Unassessed Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics