Talk:Social privilege/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Griseldarios24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kitaferd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cvelmonte.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

An unhappy customer
Oh my gosh this article. Someone please give this at least a modicum of credibility, a footnote, something. The Wikipedia is not a place to carefully document your social justice fantasy roster of accusatory terms, it is for verifiable facts and theories. (165.154.103.29 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC))
 * Yep, lots of articles need work...feel free to help out! Drmies (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah this article is kind of ..... whacky and unresearched. 59.167.111.154 (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "a modicum of credibility" If you had clicked through to the specific examples you'd see that.  And then you'd see on the talk pages there yet more cries from the privileged that their privilege doesn't exist.  There is simply no pleasing the bigots. 69.23.60.94 (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a great deal of changes have occurred in the time intervening, but I found this article well-substantiated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivamoque (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, the article is a mess. Obsessed with the conspiracy theory of "White privilege". Sure one will have to mention this preposterous concept. But first do an analysis on the fact that social privilege is a far older idea. It got some real meaning in opposition to the figments of cultural Marxists. --41.246.239.148 (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a great deal of changes have occurred in the time intervening, but I found this article well-substantiated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivamoque (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, the article is a mess. Obsessed with the conspiracy theory of "White privilege". Sure one will have to mention this preposterous concept. But first do an analysis on the fact that social privilege is a far older idea. It got some real meaning in opposition to the figments of cultural Marxists. --41.246.239.148 (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, the article is a mess. Obsessed with the conspiracy theory of "White privilege". Sure one will have to mention this preposterous concept. But first do an analysis on the fact that social privilege is a far older idea. It got some real meaning in opposition to the figments of cultural Marxists. --41.246.239.148 (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag
I've tagged this article for a neutrality because

1. Language of the article is unprofessional and biased (e.g "Privilege is generally invisible to those who have it", should include a reference in the sentence in addition to a citation, such as "According to x,").

2. This article states 'privilege' as a matter of fact (e.g "Privilege has many benefits"). It is convention when discussing sociological concepts to make clear that it is a theoretical model(e.g "Social class...is a set of concepts in the social sciences and political theory centered on models of social stratification in which people are grouped into a set of hierarchical social categories").

3. Input of opinion and commentary by the author (e.g "It began as an academic concept, but has since become popular outside of academia", no citation)

4. The section "denial of privilege" is not criticism of the concept, but a dismissal of criticism of the concept. Section "Other criticism" should be labeled as simply "Criticism" since previous section does not address criticism. The "Denial of Privilege" section does not address the denial of privilege as a concept, but seems to assume privilege as a matter of fact. Deniers in this section do not deny privilege, but rather deny their own privilege.

5. Article employs weasel words (e.g "Privilege, as understood and described by researchers...") — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedditorEditor (talk • contribs) 04:35, 15 July 2014‎


 * Yep. Regarding #4, I'd add that the term "denial" is a bad choice for a section name to begin with, implying that the "denier" is wrong or delusional (cf. "Holocaust denial" and the term "denial" in psychology). "Criticism" would be better. 86.159.197.174 (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to address some of these issues, which appeared to me as well. I think to add some more varying perspectives at this point probably would benefit the article the most.  24.18.98.101 (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also attempted to address some of these issues, though I don't believe my effort was quite enough to warrant removing the neutrality tag yet. I'm just not that good of a writer! :) – RobinHood70 talk 19:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag. Even if the WP:SPA was justified at the time, the article currently gives a straightforward exposition of the concept with cites. If anyone has concerns with particular passages, they can be addressed, but the article as a whole is not non-neutral. Dohn joe (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've also attempted to address some of these issues, though I don't believe my effort was quite enough to warrant removing the neutrality tag yet. I'm just not that good of a writer! :) – RobinHood70 talk 19:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag. Even if the WP:SPA was justified at the time, the article currently gives a straightforward exposition of the concept with cites. If anyone has concerns with particular passages, they can be addressed, but the article as a whole is not non-neutral. Dohn joe (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Privilege is invisible phrasing
Just to expand on my edit summary, I reverted this change because saying "privilege is" inherently subscribes to the concept of privilege rather than describing it neutrally, like "privilege is described as". The resulting phrase also didn't work gramatically. – RobinHood70 talk 16:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead edits
Violates LEAD. Contains an example which does not belong in lead. Example is OR. Uses terms not mentioned in article (intersectionality and ceteris paribus for example). This does not belong in lead. Stop edit warring please.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, here you are. Well, ceteris paribus and intersectionality definitely deserve mention in the article. I'm not insisting on the example because there is one later. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ceteris paribus
The ceteris paribus issue is a crucial aspect of privilege that is often misunderstood by outsiders, who tend to understand privilege as a monolithic concept (leading to questions such as "how can I be privileged when I'm poor?!" and the "Oppression Olympics" meme), which is why it deserves mention in the intro.

You have failed to explain how repeating a point already present in the article can be OR. That doesn't begin to make sense. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You aren't repeating it, you're doing WP:SYNTH. No mention of key concepts in your sentence in the actual article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Which parts exactly do you take issue with? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Lede tweaked for NPoV
I tweaked the lede to reflect the fact that "privilege" is a social theory rather than an objective fact, by changing it from "Privilege is a special right, or advantage available only to a particular person or group of people" to the more NPoV "Privilege is a special right, or advantage which some believe to be available only to a particular person or group of people" (emphasis added). I trust that's acceptable. Bricology (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted your change. See for example, the parallel discussion (and RFC) on talk:white privilege. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and I RE-reverted it, Yanping Nora Soong. The article itself elsewhere states "Some scholars who believe that privilege exists...".  All my addition did was to repeat that lack of uniformity of acceptance of "privilege" being factual, in the lede.  Without the qualification that I added, the lede appears to state definitively that "privilege" exists, rather than it being a "concept" and a "theory", as repeatedly described elsewhere in the article.  If you're going to try to remove my pointing out that "privilege" is something that is believed to exist by some scholars, then there is no reason why you shouldn't likewise object to the same language elsewhere in the article and remove it as well.  It's bad Wiki etiquette act unilaterally to remove another editor's additions without good cause, which you do not have.  If you try to revert my addition again, I will apply for protection under 3RR. Bricology (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted it per WP:ALLEGED. We are defining the concept and the lead represents the prevailing definition of that concept. This also matches the lead of white privilege. Further, there's no such thing as "protection under WP:3RR"... please discuss your WP:BOLD change to the lead per WP:BRD before editing it again.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:EvergreenFir wrote "We are defining the concept and the lead represents the prevailing definition of that concept." Bullshit.  The lede, as it was, did not include the term "concept" or any other such qualifiers.  It explicitly stated "Privilege is a special right, or advantage..."  There is no "prevailing definition" of "privilege", only prevailing usage of a term amongst some members of a particular field.  That no more proves that privilege exists a priori than the fact that white academics once largely believed and claimed that black people were inferior, somehow proved that notion to be true.  The reality is that there is significant diversity of opinion amongst sociologists, anthropologists, and others in relevant fields as to whether or not privilege exists (cf. Lewis Gordon, Shelby Steele, Orlando Patterson, John McWhorter and Walter E. Williams, to name but five), and this diversity of opinion and lack of objective definition was already repeatedly reflected elsewhere in the article, where qualifiers such as "theory", "concept" and the like are used, as well as the phrase "Some scholars who believe that privilege exists..." which has long been in the "Criticism" section.  For those qualifiers to be used elsewhere throughout the article, but to exclude them from the lede and to therefore assert certainty and uniformity there, is inconsistent, confusing and untenable.  My adding it to the lede is anything but "bold"; it is merely consistent with the rest of the article.  You claimed "there's no such thing as 'protection under WP:3RR'"  Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about.  As it says at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule : "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours."  Given that you've only been on WP for less than 3 years, you might not have knowledge of that, but I doubt it.  (I've been an editor here for ten years, and I encountered the 3RR very early on.)  Nevertheless, you should've known by now that it's bad WP etiquette to unilaterally revert another editor's additions to an article.  If you object to content they've added and you can't demonstrate vandalism or satisfy other specific criteria, you should first try to resolve it on the Talk page, and any changes to other editors' contributions should be achieved through WP:Consensus.  Ultimately, we can debate the relative merits of the subject all you want, but one thing you can't do is to claim that there is uniformity of opinion as to whether or not it exists, nor can you marginalize relevant professionals who assert that it doesn't exist.  Particularly (and ironically) because the five I referenced all happen to be black and have frequently had their views marginalized by whites.  I'm not going to allow you to perpetuate that here. Bricology (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Edits to long-standing leads are considered bold and it's worse etiquette to revert someone else's reversion of your bold edit. See WP:BRD. I know what 3RR is and you know I know it. Back to the issue: we've had this same obnoxious discussion on white privilege over and over. It's been the subject of multiple RfCs as well and after the most recent RfC the wording in the lead is White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.. I don't see why this is any different on this article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 15:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:EvergreenFir wrote "Edits to long-standing leads are considered bold". WRONG. I defy you to quote from WP:BOLD to show that the length of time a lede has been extant differentiates between an edit and a bold edit. I also challenge you to quote from WP:BOLD to show that what I've done was a bold edit. In fact, it was not. I have not added any new information to the article. All I have done is to take content already in the body of the article and reflected it in the lede for the sake of consistency and NPoV.  That is no different than if something appeared in the lede but not in the body of the article, and an editor adding that same content to the body.  NOT BOLD. You wrote "it's worse etiquette to revert someone else's reversion of your bold edit. See WP:BRD".  I don't know what orifice you're pulling that notion out of, but it ain't on WP"BRD.  This is from the lede on that page: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting..." Second, it standard practice on WP in situations where the veracity of the topic has produced controversy, to include that in the lede.  For example, Armenian Genocide includes in the lede the fact that the Turks generally deny that the Armenian Genocide took place, despite the genocide being well-documented and attested to.  To quote you: "I don't see why this is any different on this article." If you actually did understand the 3-Revert Rule, you would not have claimed that "there's no such thing as "protection under WP:3RR".  Clearly, there is, as that article explicitly points out, and as I have quoted. As for the wording of the lede at White privilege (or white skin privilege) -- I'll be taking a critical look at that article next and if I find inaccuracies, PoV or other faults there, I will deal appropriately with them. Finally, for someone who has taken the trouble to identify themselves so explicitly on their Talk page as genderqueer, feminist, LGBT, etc., your objections to my edit give the appearance of tendentiousness. Bricology (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue guidelines here. Your edit was bold and your arguments pedantic. Edit on white privilege at your own risk. There was just an rfc about the lead and edits on it would be considered against that closure. You have a battleground approach to this topic and you state as much on your own user page. That you bring up my identity as pertinent to this discussion is at best ad hominem and border on harassment. Continue that line of discussion and I will move this to ANI. Note if you have any actual comments on the edit or article, I recommend you continue them here.
 * Armenian genocide is not a good example as the Turkish rejection of the phrase is the perhaps the second most notable thing about it. I expect criticism to be in the last of this article as well, but not in the lead sentence and not with the intent of questioning the term itself. Indeed, the grieving of the phrase is the fourth paragraph of the lead. The first three decide the term and its meaning as it is, without caveats or insertions of doubt like "some people believe".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * EvergreeFir, you said that the lead defines the concept (of privilege) and represents the prevailing definition of that concept. But in truth, many Wikipedia articles use language that displays ambiguity or dissent, right in the lead paragraph.  Take African American Vernacular English, more broadly known outside of academia as "Ebonics".  It reads "African American Vernacular English (AAVE)—also called African American English (AAE); less precisely Black English, Black Vernacular, Black English Vernacular (BEV), or Black Vernacular English (BVE)—is a variety (dialect, ethnolect and sociolect) of American English, most commonly spoken today by urban working-class and largely bi-dialectal middle-class African Americans.  Non-linguists  often call it Ebonics (a term that also has other meanings and connotations)."  That description accurately reflects both the prevailing academic view and terminology as well as including the most common non-academic term, which reflects heterodoxy.  It doesn't subvert the meaning of the academic term, it simply includes a non-academic term, even one that might carry negative freight.  I don't think people are doing the accuracy or the utility of the topic any favors by pretending that there aren't opposing viewpoints, both within academia and without.  And I say this as a woman of color who taught in the sociology department of a university in New York for nearly thirty years. Marion Bee (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Wealth Privilege
Should there be a separate category for people who receive privilege and notoriety for simply being wealthy? Brock Turner and a few others? Regardless of any other privilege category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogie75 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 11 June 2016 (ITC) (UTC)
 * See Class privilege. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Balance
Come out of 20/21st century United States. There is more out there. Added a nod to it w/ a couple of see also entries Elinruby (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. Is this all the scholarship that has been done on the topic? White Europeans aren't the dominant race everywhere. In China the Han were frequently the priveleged group and then it was the Manchu during the Qing Dynasty. Is there anything on this out there through the lens of sociology and priveledge? 173.73.110.61 (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgot to log in before typing that but that was my comment Xanikk999 (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgot to log in before typing that but that was my comment Xanikk999 (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Use with regard to Old Regime France?
I tend to think of the history of "privilege" as a political concept as going back to Ancien Regime France, and the enlightenment critique of that society. See here for a later example https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Mignet   This usage long antedates 1903, and also suggests a somewhat wider meaning - which the later meaning focusing on racial justice, etc, derives from. Seems to me the article, to address that, needs to be re-written, or else an article on social privilege in general, with a focus on these particular ascriptive groups seperated?

See this as well: http://www.worldcat.org/title/essay-on-privileges-and-particularly-on-hereditary-nobility-wiritten-by-the-abbe-sieyes-a-member-of-the-national-assembly-and-translated-into-english-with-notes-by-a-foreign-nobleman-now-in-england/oclc/642552548?referer=di&ht=edition

How does an article on privilege not begin with a discussion of seminal works which led to the French Revolution? Does this obscure the roots of modern egalitarianism in the French Revolution and the enlightenment?

Or perhaps the problem is that the title of the article is "privilege" when what is really meant is "privilege theory" which is an attempt to analogize certain current social conditions with historical legal privileges? Ricardianman (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You may be looking for Privilege (law). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That brief article focuses on the technicalities of legal privilege (taxi medallions!) and has only a limited mention of the legal privileges given to the French aristocracy, which I believe is the basis for the broader discourse on social privilege (no source at hand, sorry) which in turn led to the current usage. IE what is needed is discussion of how the term evolved between 1789 and 1903, though I don't think I am the person to do that.

Ricardianman (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Synthesis: Workplace Sexism
The workplace sexism section simply quotes a single news article about a study which was neither statistically, nor scientifically rigorous. It makes it appear as if this is a damning commentary on workplace sexism, but there are several problems, not least of which is that it mentions the results but nothing about the conclusions: Ethanpet113 (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Only two names one male "Simon" and one female "Susan" wew used in the study, so it did not control for any preference of name rather than sex.
 * The effect way between 46% and 56% hiring, is this statistically significant for the number of people polled?
 * I have removed the section. It is original research. Sources do not mention social privilege at all. --MarioGom (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Removing entire subsection "Challenges to the concept"
This section adds nothing to the article, it cites no scholarly or reliable sources (only an opinion article written by a "first year" student in the Princeton newspaper), and is completely redundant as there is already a "Criticism" section in the article. I am removing this because particularly for politically controversial topics, Wikipedia doesn't need to be a platform for promoting nobody-in-particular's opinion. 8.9.88.165 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this person's criticism and the response are not really notable.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP guidelines, articles should include all major and significant minor views. Quite frankly this probably should never have been in the article in the first place. It is not as if there are not scholarly and academic critiques of this topic. Looking at the article history, it was inserted first in an earlier section "Denial of privilege" which was later reorganized as its own section "Challenges to the concept." Interestingly this disputed content appears to have been added by Sue Gardner. It feels like a triumph of the ethos of Wikipedia for an IP user to be able to build consensus to remove content that was added by a legend like Sue.8.9.88.165 (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing "Examples" section?
The section is mostly original research, except for the heterosexual privilege subsection. I think it should just be removed, possibly replaced with sections about instances of social privilege in privilege theory, such as white privilege or male privilege. --MarioGom (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Issues
The problem with this article lede is that it is not an article lede. It is a strange blend of a magazine article and academic trist furthering a theory of gloom and doom. Sparkle1 (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Dictionary use
This is not wiktionary. The dictionary should not be used as the opening sentence of this article that is for wiktionary. A far better opening sentence is required, but the current one is wholly inappropriate. Sparkle1 (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally this essay is a good place to go when evaluating the use of the dictionary as a source Dictionaries as sources
 * I disagree with some of your other points, but this one isn't wrong - a dictionary seems like a bad source to use in the lead here, since it's not specific to social privilege and since we have better sources that go into more detail. Expanding the Definition of Privilege: The Concept of Social Privilege, in particular, says that There is basic agreement among authors (Lucal, 1996; McIntosh, 1992; Robinson, 1999) regarding the definition of privilege. Drawing on the work of these authors, it seems that five core components provide the defining boundaries of this concept. First, privilege is a special advantage; it is neither common nor universal. Second, it is granted, not earned or brought into being by one's individual effort or talent. Third, privilege is a right or entitlement that is related to a preferred status or rank. Fourth, privilege is exercised for the benefit of the recipient and to the exclusion or detriment of others. Finally, a privileged status is often outside of the awareness of the person possessing it (McIntosh, 1992; Robinson & Howard-Hamilton, 2000).  That paper itself is highly-cited, so its summary seems like a good starting point for the lead - I've tried to throw together something that encompasses all those points. --Aquillion (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Opinion pieces
The other issue is the use of the Guardian opinion pieces. While the source is in and of itself a reliable source the use of individual opinion pieces in newspapers is not. It elevates an individuals opinion without laying a foundation of first why their opinion should carry additional weight and second the overall research and reliability of the piece they have written. By definition opinion pieces in newspapers are not journalistic stories/reports and as such are not subject to the same rigours. Sparkle1 (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Poor and POV phrasing
There are also a lot of uses of phrasing which dump POV and connotations on this article. There are also weasel phrases and vague assertions. There is a line beginning This subject is highly nuanced. That is in and of itself an opinion and a POV it is not a reflection of the subject neutrally. Sparkle1 (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Lack of attribution
There is also a lack of inline attribution to the source authors of academic texts and books being cited. They should reflect Author attributes or Authors of the title have researched and concluded. Currently, these are being asserted as facts and not what they are, academic theoretical furtherance. Sparkle1 (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Your proposed changes were absolutely not an improvement for many, many reasons. I have reverted, and the burden in still on you to gain consensus, as explained by WP:BRD. Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Please explain the "Many reasons" at the moment there is no ability to have a discussion without reasoning being given. It is simply a shutting down of the discussion and is not constructive or collegiate. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding this change made multiple controversial changes to the lede, each of which would need discussion and consensus. Some of these might be appropriate, but some were not, so the whole lot gets reverted. That's how WP:BRD works.
 * This change was implying, without any particular reason, that the definition provided by France Winddance Twine was an especially noteworthy or controversial opinion which needed attribution. This is emphasizing one source, while also casting doubt on that source, which is non-neutral for multiple reasons.
 * It also introduced several WP:WEASEL words which imply doubt or a lack of legitimacy, but fail to provide useful information to readers. This doesn't mean the lede is fine the way it is, but only that your edit was not an improvement.
 * It also added heavy-handed improvement templates which appeared to be "badges of shame", which is non-neutral. Do you understand what these sources are saying? If so, what are these templates going to accomplish?
 * There are other problems, and some red flags raised by your comments on this talk page, but the burden is still on you to gain consensus either way. Grayfell (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Burden of x, y, z is not a constructive way to go about discussions. Discussions are about being a useful forum to improve wikipeida not throwing responsibilities at others. Please see WP:ONUS as you are the one wanting to keep contentious material. You have accepted changes need making to the lede. You have not provided a way forward or constructive suggestions. Additionally please be aware of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR as the following statement from you may fall afoul of that: Some of these might be appropriate, but some were not, so the whole lot gets reverted.WP:BRD also does not work how you have described or characterised it as working, it is much more akin to falling into WP:BRD-NOT.


 * I have no idea what you are on about regarding "badges of shame" and "heavy-handed". Furthermore claiming the tags are those things is not assuming good faith. The templates point out problems in the current sentences which need to be addressed. Claiming they are also not neutral implies they should never be added anywhere on Wikipedia which is clearly an absurdity.


 * The Twine attribution is quoting the author of the source; if that is an issue why is the source being used? Regarding WP:weasel the whole lede is full of them which I have made direct reference to. If you have specific examples please provide them otherwise there is no way of having a constructive discussion. Vaguely stating "red-flags" (which is a bizarre phrasing to use) without going into detail is additionally unhelpful.


 * Questions phased such as 'Do you understand what these sources are saying? are also unhelpful as it implies that I must agree with you or I am being disruptive or that I am an idiot. Both of which are not constructive and assumes bad faith.


 * You accept the lede as it currently stands needs improving. Why don't you come up with some suggestions on how to improve as opposed to blocking others from editing it. Acting in a way which ends up stating to others such as myself; Changes you made are bad edit so they must be reverted en bloc but shit must stay as it is, as I won't come up with ways of improving it. I'm just going to say nope you were bad and do nothing constructive to help improve the page. is very unhelpful. Sparkle1 (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

monogamous ethnic groups vs. polygynous ethnic groups in western society
Can it be pointed out that because monogamy is forced onto polygynous ethnic groups in western society that social privilege does not result in genetic proliferation in those groups anymore. Lower class people can have many kids in western societies so the benefit of social privilege does not result in more children anymore because of monogamy. Formerly polygynous ethnic groups(jewish people, celtic people and black people) in western society are the people who complain the most about being not accepted into high status social "circles". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.46.181 (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)