Talk:White privilege/Archive 1

AFD 2005
This page was voted on for deletion at Votes for deletion/White skin privilege. dbenbenn | talk 09:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definition
The definition on the main page is lifted from WhitePrivilege.com, which is under a Creative Commons 1.0 license. Though a "dictionary definition" isn't the encyclopedic by nature, it's a starting point for further elaboration. -- Cleduc 05:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that in the article there is no mention of Dr. Peggy McIntosh's work "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" where she lists specifically the privileges associated with white privilege. Dr. McIntosh is a professor at Wellesley College, who works at the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.  Her list... (http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/mcintosh.html). It might be worth adding at least a couple of items from her list to the article to illustrate what exactly white privilege is. --24.16.234.149 10:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because she has a doctorate doesn't make what she writes worthwhile, notable, well-argued, or citable. --24.95.155.73 19:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been using Wikipedia for awhile, and made an account just so I can discuss this article. I've removed the last paragraph under "Background" because it did nothing but serve to try to establish people who believe white privilege exists as "lunatics" and people "on the fringes of society" by unnecessarily (and with no documentation whatsoever) associating people who believe it exists with people who want to destroy the white race. It had nothing to do with the actual background of white privilege. SuzySteamboat 01:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Debate
Comment, I'm not sure even White privilege would work as an encyclopedic title for an article on this topic. I'd also be concerned any such article could devolve into a rantish fork. Wyss 18:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If it did devolve into a rantish fork, somebody will have to establish NPOV. I don't think censoring which ideas are explained is a good idea -- Cleduc 00:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Censorship? Naw, I just think it's a crummy title for an article about racism. Wyss 02:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to explain how I see white privilege as distinct from racism. Racism is a general term. White privilege refers specifically to preferential treatment usually experienced by people-without-color. A good analogy would be that white privilege is a social credit where racism is a social debit.

As far as whether White privilege works as an article title, it is a common term in race relations, and it is seen as distinct from racism in general -- like it or not, want it or not.

In terms of my waving the bloody shirt of censorship, I think preventing an article from developing because of where we think it might go is antithetical to the practices and principles of WP. -- Cleduc 05:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * the line about eminem's "slight modicum of rapping ability" stinks of bias


 * Fixed. -Willmcw 19:59, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Leftist criticisms
are there any sources of criticism of "white privilege" coming from the left? as a leftist myself, i have long contested white privilege for precisely the reasons stated in the article (its removal of focus from class). it'd also be helpful, in keeping things NPOV, to include the rather obvious criticisms from the right..even though these are less personally interesting to me... User:128.54.78.199 (2005)


 * There are criticisms of the idea of "white privilege" coming from the left. However, they tend to get pushed aside as the liberal movement has gottem themselves the power to comment on such. Liberals promote the neo-tribalism/identity politics that has gotten us to the situation now. Yes, it takes away from class conciousness to promote the idea that being "white" conferrs special staus in life. Rubbish, of course. This is not the Antebellum time, nor Jim Crow, nor even the later part of the middle of last century. Unfortunately, the liberals wish to continue to act as though it is, to keep their power of course. As for the main topic, I'd say the whole idea smacks of POV from the get-go. JBDay 01:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What has white privilege done for the whites of Appalachia? White privilege is a concept promoted by black supremacists to secure government entitlements. It is not a legitimate sociological phenomenon. It is only seen through the critical lens of race, therefore only racists will have that perception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbaish (talk • contribs) 01:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought that inflammatory and inaccurate language that cannot be proven by credible sources should not be included in wikipedia. Therefore, I think that the following "The whites promoting this propaganda are usually upper class liberals who no longer struggle to make ends meet." should be deleted. I would like to see this topic updated and discussed in a respectful and thoughtful manner. GF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.15 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

^^Thank you. It sucks for white people here in Appalachia. The only families not living at poverty level are the ones that build houses and move in from New Jersey. If "white privilege" exists outside of the racist mind, why doesn't it take effect here? Out here, everyone is seen and treated as equal, even the less-than-1% or the population that is black or Hispanic. Why don;t we see the "white privilege" putting them down? Why aren't they complaining about any advantages they think we have? Sorry, but this article is pretty racist in itself. It almost seems like it was written by somebody who would refer to a person of different skin color as "it" when speaking about them. My changes should not have been erased in favor of the former biased writings. This is where Wikipedia fails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.221.68 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved
After the improper creation of White privilege (royalty) the discussion for this page was lost. Re-establishing it here, history remains at Talk:White privilege (royalty). Cleduc 03:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Steve Sailer
This doesn't belong here. I doesn't enlighten the discussion. Sailer appears to be a front-man for neo-nazi types; he has some affiliation with the VDARE site, which is considered by many people to be virulently racist. The VDARE entry on wikipedia has some details, though it's suggestive that it's presently under some dispute. I added some leavening to the Sailer paragraph instead of just yanking it, but I'd really be happier removing it all.
 * Kendallgclark 19:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It's not a paragraph on him, it's one quote from him which is directly on the topic. The rest of the paragraph discusses the topic, not Sailer. -Willmcw 21:52, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * The "sailer paragraph" means "the paragraph in which the sailer quote appears", not the "paragraph about sailer", so that's a moot objection to my point, which is more that Sailer's quote may be "directly on topic", but there are lots of things that are "directly on topic" that don't belong in an encyclopedia article because they are absurd, wrong, misleading, speculative, biased, or otherwise inappropriate. It's perfectly fine -- I don't agree with it, but it's within the bounds of the conversation -- to make the point that the benefits of white privilege were earned, in some sense. I just think the conversation is better served if that claim doesn't come from an obvious racist! --Kendallgclark 13:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps having it come from Sailer makes apparent the kind of people who engage in those arguments. As for the rest of the paragraph, it seems to head into specuclation, particularly at the end. I don't think we can comment, without attribution, about what is unjust or just. We're editors, not judges. -Willmcw 19:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel that if this section is to be included it is only right to either balance the article out with a quote from a noted radical racist against white people or note that Sailer is a Neo-Nazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.221.68 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Neologism
The reference to White Privilege being a Neologism has been added, removed, and added again. I'd like to discuss this here on the Talk page and get consensus if possible.

Generally, neologisms are not listed as such in Wikipedia (Internet, Political correctness), particularly not in the first sentence, as it is placed in this article. It seems that it has been placed prominently in this article in order to discredit the concept, as evidenced by Kaibabsquirrel's edit comment: "this is a rather fringe theory even within the left, isn't it? why give it more credibility than it deserves?" As such, I tend to agree with Willmcw that the use of "neologism" is POV in the first sentence.

My proposal is to create a separate section on the origin of the phrase. I'm not sure who coined the phrase, but it seems to have been in the 1960s. That's almost 40 years ago. What's the expiration period for neologisms? Cleduc 22:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It *is* POV to call "white privilege" a neologism. Might as well call "class" and "male privilege" and "sexism" and every other criticism of the status quo a "neologism" -- none of whic are called "neologisms" in wikipedia! As for a separate section on the origin of the term, that's do-able. I remember reading a few years ago about the person who is thought to have coined the term, sometime in the late 1960s, I remember 1969 but can't confirm, -- this usage grew out of the black power movement, as I recall. At any rate, I removed "neologism" again because if it's going to be put into this article, which I oppose, it should at least be in the article in a gramatically correct form. Which it wasn't by whomever (kaibabsquirrel?) put it back in. So I took it back out. :> (Oh, I'm Kendallgclark) 17:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * How is this not a neologism since it meets all the definitions of a neologism? Coined, as you say, in 1969; still used only by a subculture and not widely used within the broader culture; and refers to a concept that some consider to be nonsensical or prejudicial on the face of it.  That's a neologism by definition.  Move it to the criticism section if you like.  If it's not a neologism does this mean I can look in a sociology text from, say, the 1930s and find "white privilege" discussed?


 * By comparison "class" is not a neologism, it's a long-accepted term and concept. "Sexism" may or may not be more modern in origin but it is a nearly universally accepted term.


 * Here's a better neologism to compare white privilege to, since like white privilege it is an entirely modern concoction, used only by some subcultures and not the broad mainstream culture, the very use of which promotes a concept that many consider nonsensical: Meme. Kaibabsquirrel 18:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I find the analogy faulty. Whereas meme was a completely (and recently) created word, "white privilege" is a phrase made of two words, has a great deal of support in race studies, and has long since fallen into common vocabulary.  Ask an actual black person.  "Kerfuzzle" is clearly a neologism -- brand new, can't find it in the dictionary.  The argument doesn't hold water, and the edit notes prove the intended POV to me. Cleduc 02:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge with giant article titled "Media and ethnicity"
The article media and ethnicity covers this same subject in much more detail and with far more sources.

Justin Alvarez Jr. 02:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The concept of "white privilege" is not solely a media phenomenon, it is also an economic force and a factor in human interaction. That's clear in the introduction to the article, though the article later goes on to elaborate influence on the media (which is a digression in my opinion). Removed merge tag.  Cleduc 02:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. It should be a stand-alone article. futurebird 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussion in Talk:Media_and_ethnicity. You'll know why it should be merged. Even though 'White privilege' is not solely a media subject, the big plan is that media and ehtnicity will be merged via media bias, then eventually to the main article racism. 'White privilege' is a racist issue.

Justin Alvarez Jr. 02:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Merger cancelled
The decision to merge this article to the giant article media and ethnicity has been dropped (for now). This is mainly because the giant article media and ethnicity, although it covers more than just media issues, might undergo a title makeover (making it more than just an article about the media). After this happens (it might take time), don't be surprised that someone reinstates the "merger" tag again on the articles: white privilege, media bias, cultural imperialism. The big plan is for these smaller articles to merge with the giant article media and ethnicity (when or if re-titled), then from there, a super-merge will happen with the general article racism.

Justin Alvarez Jr. 03:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You have a new message in the "Media and ethnicity" discussion page
Talk:media and ethnicity

Justin Alvarez Jr. 05:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Asian privilege
Is there a study of Asian privilege in Asian countries? Obviously, it is a huge benefit to be Japanese in Japan, Chinese in China, Arab in the Middle East, etc. as it is to be White in the West, etc. Just a thought. Thanks.Yukirat 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "West" does not equal "White". It is not a huge advantage to be Native American in the west, or native Andean, which are the more relevant comparisons. Even within Japan there are ethnic preferences (see Ainu people). -Will Beback 21:03, 2 August 2006

(UTC)


 * Will, I'm not sure you make sense. Amerindian does not equal "White" or Western". Does it help to be Japanese in Japan, compared to being Filipino or Black?  Of course.  There is Japanese privilege in Japan, and Jewish privilege in Israel over Israeli Arabs.  Of course.  Whites founded the United States of America, not Amerindians.  Yukirat 08:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, in Thailand, quite a few places practiced dual pricing. They'd write prices and instructions (say for parking) in English and Thai.  The version in English would have the price be doubled (Thai has their own Thai numerals which is how they can get away with it).  It's not exactly looking at your skin color so much as it is general taking advantage of foreigners. Dracil 19:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Intersting. That sounds like "Thai-prvilege", and outright anti-White (english-speaking) racism!!  Thanks.Yukirat 08:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Dracil just said it was about taking advantage of foreigners, and somehow you took that to be anti-white.  ColourBurst 15:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Asians" don't have privilege in Asian countries (this implies in Asia, there's a racial construct that includes members of East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia and West Asia, which there isn't.). Koreans and Filipinos are two of the most persecuted groups in Japan!  Chinese are persecuted in Southeast Asian countries.  So no.  If you want to talk about what you really mean - majority privilege - there may be a case.  However, I think some theorists believe that white privilege is international to an extent (see Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt's second adoption.), because of the proliferation of culture across the world, and wealth factors as well. ColourBurst 15:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Major Edit by Fab123
My collegues and I have significantly edited the content of this page as part of a graduate school project on multicultural issues. We would have preferred to discuss the revisions on this page prior to making the edit, but needed to get it up on a deadline and thus did not have the opportunity.

Existing content in the prior "Background" section was largely retained, although edited and moved about. We added a new "Definition and Discussion" section, retaining some of the original content, revising some, and adding substantial text.

We substantially revised a recent edit of the "Criticism" section. We felt this edit was written in a biased fashion which was not in keeping with the neutral point of view editorial rule of this publication. Statements such as "the whites promoting this propaganda [white privilege] are usually white upper class liberals who no longer struggle to make ends meet" seemed particularly out of step with a neutral POV. Also, footnote links to factual assertions such as that "most persons living in poverty in the U.S. are white" and "the only group with a growing poverty rate are likewise non-hispanic whites" were not completed--these seemingly controversial assertions were therefore unsubstantiated by references to authority. On the other hand, we put in references for our assertions that there remain statistical imbalances in major economic and social indicators in favor of Whites over people of color. Certainly, it would be welcomed to see additional references for either position added to the page.

We recognize White Privilege is a "hot button" topic that is difficult to discuss objectively or neutrally. In our addition to the "Criticism" section, we attempted to be balanced and neutral, although we recognize others, such as the person who drafted the prior edit, may disagree. We welcome any discussion of, reaction to, or criticism of our edit!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab123 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place for original research. No school project on multicultural issues should EVER involve editing wikipedia.  I commend you and your colleagues for filtering out any existing statements are "facts" that shouldn't have been there.  But I would like to quote something you said in the above, "our assertions that there remain statistical imbalances in major economic and social indicators in favor of Whites over people of color".  This resembles a thesis paper, which should never be used on wikipedia.  Rather than say that there are major economic and social indicators in favor of whites over people of color, you could say "The 2000 US Census reported that Caucasian individuals made 29% more income on average than people of other races when averaged" (those are random numbers I used for the example). Remember, wikipedia is about fact, and not opinion. Chris01720 04:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm disputing the neutrality of this article
I find it difficult to believe that this article is not intended to push some kind of POV, and thus hve tagged it accordingly. Jtrainor 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The concept of white privilege its self is pushing a POV. The concept is published to promote white guilt and to justify affirmative action discrimination against white people. The article simply reflects the concept. More research needs to be done to bring this to light. Rbaish 11:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that Jtrainor (see above) tagged this article because there is a definitely a POV being pushed in this article. It is making a strong statement that "white privilege" does exist and is experienced by all whites, rather than explain WHAT white privilege is. It's not just the context that plagued by this, but the word choices in it clearly represent a strong bias. "White privilege" is an abstract concept used to describe a phenomena, but it is depicted as an indisputable fact in this article. To me, it appears that someone was having a bad day and decided to unload their crap on wikipedia because it doesn't flow as though it was work of multiple people. That aside, it would probably best for the article to be rewritten because don't think the POV issue in the article is something that can just be cleaned up. Chris01720 04:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I had wrote the following towards the top of the discussion page, but thought that I should include it down here too because it was relevant in both areas, but for slightly different reasons. Also, I removed something I said in my above entry because it wasn't relevant: Wikipedia is not a place for original research.  No school project on multicultural issues should EVER involve editing wikipedia (see the begining of the discussion page).  I commend you and your colleagues for filtering out any existing statements are "facts" that shouldn't have been there.  But I would like to quote something you said in the above, "our assertions that there remain statistical imbalances in major economic and social indicators in favor of Whites over people of color".  This resembles a thesis paper, which should never be used on wikipedia.  Rather than say that there are major economic and social indicators in favor of whites over people of color, you could say "The 2000 US Census reported that Caucasian individuals made 29% more income on average than people of other races when averaged" (those are random numbers I used for the example). Remember, wikipedia is about fact, and not opinion. Chris01720 04:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's get rid of this one
I proposed this be deleted, it has no basis in fact, and is quite silly to even debate. I am shocked this has been on wiki as long as it has, it's blatent racism, and has no credible sources. This info would only be considered appropriate in radical racist propaganda. 68.10.43.220 20:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. theshadymonk 21:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't go as far as to call it "radical racist propaganda", but it does need some hefty revision or possibly deletion. If you read the top of the talk page you will see that this was actually the thesis or a group of grad students.  It reads like a thesis, cites its sources like a thesis, and has an argument statement just like a thesis paper.  I don't think the creator(s) intended it to be racist, but it does represent a single racist point of view. Chris01720 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be right in that it might not be radical racist propoganda, but the fact remains that it is not based in facts, is 100% subjective, racist, and certainly has no place on wikipedia. I do not even know how to begin editing to fix this other then making a short stub that says something along the lines of "This is a belief held by a small minority of racist people in the united states" which also would not be suitable for wiki, that is why I suggest we delete it. Everyone should have a voice on wikipedia, even the bigot grad students who wrote this, but they should also have to follow the same standards for quality as everyone else. 68.10.43.220 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to be mean, but this nomination is ridiculous. This article has many sources and is on a topic that is very important in American society (among others). There is also an extensive criticism section. Pretty much any social scientist can affirm the existence of this phenomenon. Besides, even if the phenomenon isn't real, the concept is and should be discussed. Why are whites usually the only ones who deny the existence of white privelge? (I'm white by the way, at least in terms of my appearance). I would remove the PROD as completely unjustified (which someone else did earlier), but I don't want to be accused of doing it because of my own bias. I'll wait until someone else does.  Ungovernable Force  Poll: Which religious text should I read? 18:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'm going to remove the prod again, as it's totally unjustified. As I explained in the edit summary, this subject is extremely well documented in Reliable sources, many books and scholarly articles. Disagreeing with the subject is not a valid criteria for deletion. If you still suggest deletion, the issue must be raised at Articles for deletion; prod is only for uncontested deletion and you should not add it again. This article has already survived one previous discussion to delete it, at Articles for deletion/White skin privilege.--Pharos 19:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well since the bigots want to keep this myth going on wikipedia, I have started to make edits of any mention suggesting that this is a real thing. I am going to try to get the article to a somewhat neutral state. Wikimanjeff 20:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are misusing the term stereotype; white privilege is not a "stereotype" (please look up its definition), and no WP:RS would call it that. Criticism of the concept would be that it is exaggerated or outdated, not that it is a "stereotype".--Pharos 20:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And the term "bigot." How the heck is it bigoted to say a certain group has more privelge in society? That is not inherently intolerant or hateful, and can often be the opposite. And just what evidence do you have that this is a "myth?"  Ungovernable Force  Poll: Which religious text should I read? 05:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you have that is not? He's the one who thinks the article should go, not you, therefore it is you who bear the onus of proving that it exists and is noteable per Wikipedia policies. Jtrainor 13:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to exist, it just has to be discussed in reliable sources like the ones cited in the article. And it doesn't have to be proven notable when such reliable sources exist, as they are themselves the benchmark. That's why there's an article on God: We don't demand theists prove God exists and is notable before creating the article because the concept of God certainly exists and is notable. And it is not, in fact, the inclusionist who carries the burden of proof, but the deletionist. There is very little chance of having this deleted - please read WP:ATT and WP:N. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  06:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The page should just be deleted. White privilege is not a fact because it is an abstract concept.  The person who essentially wrote this article wrote it as a thesis paper (look at the top of the talk page).  There are two problems with that.  First of all, it's original research.  But more importantly, a thesis is an argument. It is impossible to write a thesis paper on a fact; any English professor would give the student an F if they did.  The problem with this article is not whether or not white privilege exists, it's that the article is in no way encyclopedic.  It should explain what the concept of white privilege is.  It should not say anything along the lines of "white people have a higher income then minorities".  That is too vague of a blanket statement, even with a reliable source.  Instead, it should say something like "in the 2000 US Census the average black American had an annual income of bla-bla-bla while the average white American..." (please neglect the fact that my example has an American-centric view).  And every encyclopedia approaches the subject from every angle.  There is little mention of Affirmative Action in the US in the article.  It doesn't list that minorities get accepted into colleges easier than whites (and that is a fact because colleges in the US are fully open about that policy).  This article is just NOT FIT FOR AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.  Whether or not white privilege exists is not important. Chris01720 09:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted a large section of the article because of its source. The source was a residential life document from the University of New Hampshire that was literally a checklist for students.  IT WAS A CHECKLIST; WTF, it has the same level of authority on the subject of white privilege that my weekly grocery list has. Also, I think the user "The Ungovernable Force" should take a look at Wikipedia's policy on Undue Weight. Chris01720 10:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I did some cleanup, and when I actually looked at some of the sources it was obvious that some of them were not credible and I either edited those sections or removed them. Once I sifted out much of the entries from BS sources it doesn't have as much undue weight.  If you disagree with my edits then let me know. Chris01720 10:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Weasel-Words
I have made an attempt to make this page less racist and more educational by omitting weasel-words where I found them and by revising/omitting certain sections that harbored a very biased taste. I added my own lttle bash on hypocrisy in some parts; you can all take that out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.221.68 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

6/23/07 Aw who done made the page all racist again, naw?! Somebody must surely hate white people here on Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.221.68 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is progressing well
I had made major edits to this article months ago, much of which involved deleting a lot of information that had no factual basis and violated numerous Wikipedia guidelines. The article is no where near perfect, but it has definitely progressed. I would like to thank those who have been making edits and slowly progressing the article. I do ask that everyone watch your style when writing. Many parts of this article read more like an essay than an encyclopedia. Keep up the good work. Chris01720 19:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that this article has progressed incredibly since I first came across it about 4 or 5 months ago. Much of this improvement has appeared recently. The article has a much more neutral point of view and fewer weasel words. Keep up the good work everyone! Chris01720 05:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I object to the POV of this article
I edited this article on 6/26/07 because the definition section was not written from a neutral point of view, specifically, the author has presented the theory as if it were accepted and proposed with the rigours of sociological theory. The author (Chris) has squelched the more neutral definition which I have presented which adds that "white privilege" as a sociological theory is fringe science, as in not researched and quantified by the scientific method.

Chris also reverted out my more logically positive criticisms of the term, which I used to clean up the Criticisms section. Chris prefers to have his essay with its numerous missing citations to stand as the as yet badly written section.

It is my opinion that both of these moves represent a bias which he is injecting into this article. By standards of common sense, it is bunk to present a fringe sociological theory as commonly accepted and to include with it the bias or wild claims of its proponents.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.48.73.7 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I got news for you, I'm not the author of anything in this article.
 * In fact, if you think this is written bad that you should have seen the old one. The old one was actually a student's thesis paper on white privilege.  I went through and purged most of it because it was so much opinion and no statistics.  Since then people have begun writing things in the article and adding to the information I didn't purge.  I am sorry if I reverted some legitimate changes, but it isn't really possible to go through and revert only specific changes, unless it was the last change made.  I suggest you look at the article history and read the article as it was prior to May 4th.  White privilege doesn't necessarily imply racism.  An example would be Band-Aids.  Band-Aids are the same color of "white" skin, but there are no "black" skin Band-Aids.  Obviously this isn't because of racism, it's just an issue of demographics.  I do not believe that Band-Aids are an issue and anybody who thinks they are needs to get their priorities straight.  But it was just an example as to how white privilege doesn't need to involve racism.  I personally feel that this issue of white privilege is often blown out of proportion; but you need to remember that this article explains what white privilege is (ie. what the abstract concept know as white privilege claims to be).  It is not an article supporting or dismissing the existence or validity of white privilege.  That is what I meant by an objective viewpoint.  I agree with you on some of your thoughts, but it's not objective, so I refrain from incorporating that into my decisions on wikipedia.
 * Remember, this article is not claiming that white privilege does or does not exist, it is only explaining the abstract concept and rational of each side. Also, I am well aware that this article is no where near perfect and still needs a lot of work, but it's definitely an improvement from what it was. Chris01720 02:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of good papers with statistics. For example: http://www.cwsworkshop.org/resources/WhitePrivilege.html where you can find definitive articles like kendalls: http://www.cwsworkshop.org/pdfs/WIWP2/4Underst_White_Priv.PDF .  'White privilege' is by no means a fringe sociological movement, it has a historical basis in social movements (including some radical ones like the Weathermen).  If nothing else, history and scholarship should sort out the ideological disagreements.. - Andrew C 68.111.33.181 19:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This article seems to actually be redeemable. When I proposed it be deleted, it was nothing more then a one sided racist rant presented as a fact.  I am glad to see it has evolved towards a much more neutral ground. 68.10.43.220 15:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. Chris01720 05:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
I removed:
 * The basis behind Sailer's comments is likely the creation of European industrialization, a "leap forward" for humanity on par with the development of agriculture. As a result, Europe and European societies progressed at a faster pace over the last century and a half than other parts of the world.

from the article because as phrased it is clearly Original Research. If this is indeed part of Sailer's work, please include citation and change phrasing to properly attribute the idea to Sailer when adding it back to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.115.165 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance
"However it should also be mentioned that blacks and hispanics are, according to FBI released victim crime reports, eight times more likely to commit a felony than whites."

This quote has been added, removed, and readded, and I think it would be great if it was discussed here. Personally, I don't think it's relevant, and would remove it. Thoughts? Murderbike 00:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree it's irrelevant. We should have statistics that support the existence of white privilege, and statistics that support the non-existence of white privilege. I cannot see how this statistic does either of those things. If it were re-added, someone would need to use it to make some kind of logical inference about white privilege. Otherwise, it should be promptly removed. 64.231.193.236 02:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well put. I had a hard time understanding why this information was on this page. It's off topic. futurebird 02:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It does have some level of relevance in that it is involved in race relations. However, I do not believe it belongs in the article.  Even if it was more on topic, it fails to address why--are they a product of their environment, genetically more likely, or does the stereotype that they commit crime play into their childhood development?--  Whether or not the statistic is true (and why) does not make it relevant enough to use in the article; it's more relevant in an article about racial justice.  A lower/higher crime rate is not a "privilege" experienced by a race (unless it is the ratio of crime-to-conviction that you are referring to). Chris01720 00:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On a related note in the same section of the article, the statement Black youth arrested for drug possession for the first time are incarcerated at a rate that is forty-eight times greater than the rate for white youth, even when all other factors surrounding the crime are identical. seems a little on the high side. Are there other sources for this? Chris01720 00:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * good question. and there are probably multiple studies dealing with the same issues. offering multiple studies would only be a good thing, as I'm sure there is at least SOME variance. (maybe even contradictions?) 64.231.193.236 04:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Change Article Name to "Racial Privilege"
The article seems to touch a bit on other types of racial privilege; and has the capacity to cover other forms of racial privilege in more detail. Since there are other types of privilege than just white privilege. In some settings the race with "privilege" isn't the whites. Jews are white, but are also discriminated against for their nationality (Asians, too). This might help create a more worldly view for the article. Therefore, I propose the article be renamed "Racial Privilege" so that other forms of this privilege may be included. Chris01720 00:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with this proposed name change. Whether you agree that it exists or that it describes racial situations accurately, many social scientists and writers do use the term "white privilege" to describe the power relations between whites and non-whites (see the list of cited sources, where the term "white privilege" or "whiteness" figures heavily into many of the listed titles).  The article should reflect that usage. --Proper tea is theft 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the change this would make sense if there were some examples... The title of the article is a reference to a term that is very common in academic discourse on the subject, part of the purpose of the article is to inform people about the meaning of the phrase. Changing the title would be confusing.


 * If there was a lot of other material on other kinds of racial privilege, or if the term "racial privilege" was in common use I'd support this change and "white privilege" could just be one subsection of that article.


 * But, at this stage, we don't have anything. futurebird 01:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely oppose the change, as I have never seen sources for the use of the term "racial privilege". Murderbike 01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * agree with most of the other statements against the name change. i'd also add an important comment: white privilege has expanded as more people have been considered 'white'. pretty much the history of white privilege is the history of immigrants and assimilation in America. so the statement "jews are white" might be true today, but wasn't necessarily true 100 years ago. it also explains why there are still some continuing stereotypes about jewish people. my research hasn't focused on them yet, but maybe when i find some more time i'll offer some more data. particularly on the issue of racial stereotyping. perception. this is a really great study dealing with what people think of "the races": http://cloud9.norc.uchicago.edu/dlib/t-19.htm ... apparently the average American thinks jews are pretty good people, but relatively unpatriotic. if someone wants to read this and beat me to it, i'd welcome that. 64.231.193.236 04:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the change, if not then there needs to be an article started for "Black Privilege" and so on. And before you say there's no such thing, Black History Month and Affirmative action are just two examples. R.westermeyer 06:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean, like, this kind of Black Privilege?
 * But seriously here is an article about a real kind of Black Privilege -- though it's really more like "American Privilege." futurebird 14:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no theory of black privilege out there. This sounds more like a criticism of the existence of white privilege -- that black people receive special treatment. "Black privilege" would probably be deleted for a lack of notability, and for being original research. Probably best to put your criticism of white privilege here. With references, of course. 64.231.193.236 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that the term is "white privilege". I am a currently college student at the University of Vermont. I know that this is just one section of the country, but the sociology professors (at least the one I have) refers to it as "racial privilege" because of how dynamic it is. The definition of "white" in regaurds to privilege and racism has morphed over time. To say that only the white race has privileges is taking a very US-centric view rather than a worldly view. For example, Arkia Israeli Airlines (the Israeli national airline) has a 3-tier system of security (based on racial profiling) in which Jews/Israelis are in the 1st tier, the 2nd tier includes non-Arabs and non-Jews, and the 3rd tier is for Arabs. There is an instance in which there is a privilege (less hassle at security at the airport) for a race other than the white race. I do agree that there is definitly not enough in the article to rename it yet; but my vision is that the article could get the substinance and then get the name change. However, it seems that the majority feel that the name change would be a poor idea, so I guess it will stay as "White Privilege". Chris01720 23:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Chris, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the" term. If your sociology professors refer to the concept of "racial privilege" and not to "white privilege", that is not, in itself, evidence that the concepts are the same and that one term is more appropriate than the other. There is unquestionably a significant amount of academic literature dedicated to the concept "white privilege", which is in fact distinct from the more generic concept of "racial privilege" because it is, in fact, not a generic theory about how race relations might work but a specific, historically grounded model of how race relations have worked.  You are free to write a sourced, non-original research article about "racial privilege" which covers the generic topic, linking to this article as appropriate. I think that would be a great contribution to Wikipedia. However, because the very phrase "white privilege" is current in some circles and not others, people who, like yourself, are unfamiliar with the concept will need the assistance of an encyclopedic article to familiarize themselves with it. It's a notable concept; we cover it; period. --lquilter 13:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone were to start an article called racial privilege, I'd do what I could to help edit. I can't say I know where to find much research, but I can help with clarity of wording, organization, and keeping vandalism out. 64.231.195.228 15:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the cited authors here are describing a specific cluster of advantages as white privilege, they should almost certainly stay in article named that. The real question is whether there is material about racial privilege which is both distinct and notable at this point. Best of luck writing, but let's leave this article where it is, and sort out its problems without trying to simultaneously redefine its content.--Carwil 16:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that there are people who would assist me in writing an article on racial privilege and help keep vandalism out, but I don't think I will be writing it anytime soon. I currently have mono and am struggling (unsuccessfully) just to keep on top of my school work. I don't think I have a vast enough knowledge of social issues to write such an article, either. I'm an electrical engineering major, which is about as far from sociology as one can get. -Chris01720 01:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is now the subject of an "Article for Deletion" debate
I strongly oppose deleting this article. I believe there is no basis for deleting this article, according to the articles for deletion policy. But please feel free to state your own reasoning at the AfDeletion debate page. Your voice counts. 67.71.1.139 15:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is silly. Why is there a deletion debate? The article is well sourced and has an extensive section on criticism? futurebird 16:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The opposition is generally based upon the umbrage those who have privilege yet who are unaware of their privilege. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 16:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's really transparent and a little sad. futurebird 16:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for painting me as a racist, but that won't make this article any better. Your comments have been noted. Jtrainor 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This article fails WP:SYN, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SOAP, and our neutral POV policy. There's really nothing to argue about. In any case, I am incensed that you would make such a blanket accusation and assumption; we have a policy about that as well at WP:AGF. MalikCarr 22:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no need for anyone to feel defensive about white privilege. Benefiting from white privilege doesn't make you a racist. Denying the existence of white privilege doesn't make you racist, either. However, denying the existence of white privilege might make you wrong. Otherwise, I don't care to speculate why seemingly intelligent people ignore factual evidence. 67.71.1.139 01:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said I was white? Your condescending tone is noted, Mr. IP Address. Jtrainor 01:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said you were white? In the interest of fairness, I responded with the same tone you've given others. "Thanks". 67.71.1.139 02:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hrumph. Since I seem to be on trial here all of a sudden, I'll just spell it out for you. I'm not white. I'm an ethnic Greek, and I live in California. Last time I checked, us Hellenics weren't considered "whites" in the truest sense of the word. Hitler certainly didn't, anyway, and the racists of today seem to refer to him as the expert on what is or isn't "white". I don't have a lot of money, and I attend college on grants for doing well on standardized tests. I don't believe whites are somehow responsible for my current situation - I know a fair deal who are worse off than I am, no less. I oppose this article, not because I'm a pissed-off white who wants to control information and minority empowerment, as some editors have suggested, but because I think it's bogus as it is now. It's speculative, full of original research and the vast majority of its sources are completely inappropriate as the main references for a neutral and verifiable article. Are you happy now? MalikCarr 05:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why anyone here felt the need to talk about their race, or how "not racist" they are. Nobody started a witchhunt based on race. Nobody accused anyone of being racist. Denying the existence of white privilege doesn't make someone racist. (Neither does admitting it, for that matter.) I don't understand the need to be defensive. But it is kind of sad if defensiveness is a factor in wanting to delete this article. 64.231.195.228 11:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr. Anonymous IP: Some editors have made the allegation that, since we're pushing for the demise of an article that claims to be about race relation in a fashion that doesn't favor whites, we must therefore be whites, and possibly pushing our own POV. I don't believe I should have to explain the existential reasoning for anything I do on Wikipedia, but in this case I figured it might help to dispel some editors' current perceptions about who we are and why we're doing this. Evidently not, however. Groan. MalikCarr 18:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not happy. I'm annoyed that you have been vigorously supporting an article for deletion, when there was no reason to nominate it for deletion, and you seem to admit that you did it due to your personal POV rather than because you knew the content of the article warranted deletion. Please don't do that. futurebird 06:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My personal POV? Did you even read anything I've written here? MalikCarr 06:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is counter-productive. There is a deletion debate because a Wikipedia editor doesn't think this article meets the encyclopedia's standards of inclusion. Period. There's an appropriate forum in which to discuss the merits of that argument, and this isn't it. Sitting here and making accusations against the editors who want to delete this article isn't helpful. If you want to save this article, why don't you read some of the criticism that has been leveled against it and try to improve it? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've come to the conclusion that at least one of the editors who is pushing for the deletion of this article has some objective beside the improvement of the encyclopedia. I take back what I said, although I still encourage people to improve the article to try to save it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, your dislike of my support of this AfD has been noted. Honestly, the way you cite an alleged failure of AGF on my part, then make blatant accusations of totally unfounded basis is downright offensive. MalikCarr 05:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you know he was talking about you? futurebird 05:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Gee, because there's two people actively defending this AfD, and one of them hasn't even engaged in dialog with him? You'd have to be blind not to make the connection. MalikCarr 05:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now who's doing original research?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.29 (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. None of us are operating under the pretense that the article is perfect, or even in an acceptable state. But it has been steadily improving in the past few months. We hope you can help us identify specific problems with the article so they can be fixed over the next few months. Unfortunately, the blanket effort to delete this article has failed to explain as much as you have. 67.71.1.139 02:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent additions, Malik! futurebird —Preceding comment was added at 03:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Tomorrow I'll try to find some articles that tie the race/criminal justice numbers directly to the concept of white skin privilege. Otherwise, that section of the article is considered WP:Original research because it's making a connection between the two that a reliable source hasn't made. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath
People overwhelmingly pushed for keep. More importantly, nobody seemed to be able to undermine the credibility of the sources -- at least enough to justify deleting the whole article. Still, we should keep going steps further to improve the citations in this article. If there's a news article that cites a statistic from a report, we should track down and cross-cite the report. Thanks to everyone for helping make this article a credible one. Now let's keep raising the standard, slowly but surely. 64.231.195.228 03:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible NPOV sources
Hi, Google books title search turned up 26 books on the subject that might help editing efforts. Benjiboi 03:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What about racial profiling?
Is that relevent to this article? Whites do not have to worry about being racially profiled. Then again, I can't show that racial profiling happens all that often. I have two sources dealing with one historical case, though: Does this fit? Maybe under the "Justice" section? 64.231.195.228 05:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/10/12/racial.profiling.ap/
 * http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/15792prs20020115.html
 * Racial profiling is racial profiling and a form of racism. But the data shouldn't go directlin into this article because profiling is not really white privilige, except that a white person driving a Mercedes past a police officer doesnt have to worry that the police officer will assume the car is stolen and pull them over. But thanks for the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.28 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Racial profiling isn't always benefiting whites (though, admittedly, it is most of the time). See my example in the discussion on the name change of this article.  In the case of the Israeli national airline the racial profiling does not necessarily benefit whites.  Therefore, I think racial profiling could be discussed, but it would have to make it clear that racial profiling does not always benefit whites, and just discuss racial profiling in the context of white privilege. -Chris01720 01:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Operationalizing No More!
Thank you futurebird for removing the ridiculous section heading 'Operationalizing' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.29 (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * didn't think anyone would miss it. futurebird 05:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely an improvement. Although I have one constructive criticism. Since the section is now an Overview, maybe the most general information could be at the top, with more detailed or academic ideas deeper in the section? People reading this article may have no experience with the concept. Maybe the Peggy McIntosh idea should be at the top? I just know the idea of white privilege as property is a little complex, and only a subsection of the research on this topic. ... Either way, thanks a lot for the great edits so far. 64.231.195.228 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Other source of white privilege?
A lot of what I'm going on is common sense, but I'm 90% sure someone must have made the connection between these factors and white privilege: I suspect someone out there has made the connection between these and white privilege, and have even backed it up with some statistics. 130.63.189.44 20:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Most jobs are not advertised for, and are filled through social networks (creates an "old boys network")
 * Alumni preference and legacy programs