Talk:White privilege/Archive 10

Dear Wikipedia, can you please hire someone professional to manage this page?
Your policies indicate:

"Be polite, and welcoming to new users   Assume good faith    Avoid personal attacks    For disputes, seek dispute resolution Article policies

No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability"

However

1. Grayfell, denies the policy of verifiability and simply states the unfalsifiable theory of "white privilege" as though it were a fact.

2. Grayfell makes groundless personal attacks on people who disagree with him about white privilege (see previous posting and his sarcastic "very liberal" comment). He also accuses people who disagree with him of being racist (again see his reply to previous posting).

3. This page is so far from neutral that it doesn't even offer a criticism section--even though it is, by its own definition, a "controversial" topic. Controversial means that there is heated disagreement about it, but Grayfell denies the criticism section and even goes so far as to insinuate that all criticism is merely "sudden" and "politically conservative" in origin (See last sentence of article's first section).

4. People who disagree with Grayfell are also blocked from editing for spurious reasons.

I have tried to resolve this matter by creating an account, but I have been blocked. I know that it may be hard to show any dissent on this controversial subject because fighting racism, especially in our current political climate, is of supreme importance; however, it is ethically irresponsible and not in alignment with your own policies to allow such violations to continue.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Marc Lawson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.24 (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Have you been blocked? I cannot find any account that's been blocked that has edited this page recently, so it seems like you may be confused. I am not an admin, and do not have the power to block anyone. I'm going to repeat what I said above, since it still hasn't been addressed:
 * You're giving me a lot of credit for shaping an article I haven't actually edited that much. I'm not the one who wrote the lead, and it's been like that since long before I started watching it. If you want to address me, just talk directly to me as another person. So are you arguing with me because of my actions, or because I'm willing to explain the situation on this talk page?
 * While it might be convenient to think this page is the result of one rogue editor, that's not the case. The article and the issues discussed here are the result of many editors who understand the sources, understand Wikipedia's policies, and are willing to use those to work towards consensus. I never called you a racist, but yes, I did make a sarcastic comment about being "super liberal". That was based on edits made from your IP address. I don't know that you made those edits, and if you didn't, I apologize. You're spending so much time and effort trying to pin this on me that it's hard for me to take your proposals seriously. Trying to paint me as a white privilege boogie man is a waste of time that could be better spent improving the article. Expecting me to bend over backwards to welcome "newcomers" after they accuse me of "gaming the rules of Wiki-pedia editing to try to silence opposition" without anything substantial to back it up is ridiculous, and exceeds the expectations set by WP:AGF. Grayfell (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I had a block that lasted until today: it began right after I posted on this talk page. My several requests to open an account were subsequently ignored and I had to use a public library computer to post comments here. Perhaps it was not you, but it was nonetheless totally inappropriate and wiki users should know about it.

I only intend to give you credit for the things you said and did.

Wikipedia has not addressed any of these issues about this page:

1.The article did not always feature "the seemingly-sudden hostility from right-wing critics since 2014" ending that is a blatant ad hominem attack against all criticism.

2. The article used to have a criticism section that included such things as the danger of using skin color as a proxy for class. Where did that go?

3. If you have deleted a criticism section from an article on a very controversial subject and ad hominem attacked all criticism in the first section of that article, how then is the criticism made by another user that you are "gaming the rules of Wiki-pedia editing to try to silence opposition" not warranted?

4. How is my asking wiki to follow its own policies equivalent to asking you personally "to bend over backwards"?

5. "White privilege", as it is defined, is not a proven reality and may in fact be a dishonest negative essentialisation of all white people. To clarify the conceptual fallacy about "white privilege": this is not my opinion, it is a mathematical impossibility for *all* of the 77% white population to possess any single type of privilege. A privilege, of any type, always means an advantage that puts one in a significantly above average position. 77% of all American people is too large a group for all of them to have a significantly above average amount of *anything* relative to the average of all Americans.

This is another reason why it is important to clarify that "white privilege" is not an empirically validated quality of white people. "White privilege" is at best an unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific theory like Freudian psychology and it is almost certainly a massive overgeneralization. Describing the concept as though it were an empiricle fact is blatent lying and totally unethical encyclopedic writing.

Grayfell,

It doesn't matter how many books are written about it (Freud and Jesus are two of the most quoted people in history) and it doesn't matter how many wiki people believe in it, or how long the article has been up, "white privilege" is still at best a theory.

Don't make assumptions snd personal attacks about my political beliefs. Though I should not have to state it, I have done more in the service of people of color and other historically maligned minority groups and have been more outspokenly politically liberal than anyone I know. You do not know me nor do you possess the knowledge to define me or make any personal attacks about me based on the little information you have about me.

I am not interested in attacking you personally, Grayfell, I am interested in the truth and the integrity of the article. ---If anyone else is managing this article, the criticism applies to them also---

Sincerely,

Marc Lawson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.12 (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2016‎


 * No block shows up in your IP's block log, but your IP doesn't appear stable. Libraries and other public access points get blocked a lot. It's possible you got caught in the crossfire for someone else's edits, or alternately you were blocked for some other edits that are not clearly linked to your behavior here. Both are good reasons to make and use an account. If you are Doniboy71, you should consider using that account again, since it is not blocked and hasn't been blocked in the past (as far as I can tell).
 * I'm not the one "managing" this article. There's no manager for an article, that's not how Wikipedia works. I've personally made 8 edits to the page, none of which removed the criticism section. Looking through the archives, that was removed several years ago, before I came along. Whenever it was, there are good reasons for such a change, including some you might agree with. Criticisms sections tend to undermine the legitimacy of criticism. Instead of confining critical blurbs to a separate section, they should generally be integrated with the rest of the article, where the can be judged as part of the whole picture. Separate sections imply that criticisms are confined to a specific set of perspectives, instead of part of the larger debate with multiple possible positions. There are exceptions, of course, but this isn't one of them. WP:CSECTION explains this.
 * There are a ton of books describing Freudian psychoanalysis as unscientific (several of which are themselves noteworthy). If you have reliable sources describing white privilege as unscientific, or as a theory, bring them forth for discussion. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, so it really does matter "how many books are written about it". This is a summary of reliable sources. That's the heart of Wikipedia.
 * "Though I should not have to state it..." - Yet you do. Nobody here has any interest in verifying that or following up on it. Your edits are what matters. Grayfell (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Marc Lawson, you say the article once had a "Criticism" section. I've had this article on my watchlist for many years, and I don't remember one (although I can't say that one didn't pop up for a few days before being deleted). You can see the article's history, and look at any old version of the article you'd like, by clicking on the tab at the top of the page. Find a version of the article that had the vanished "Criticism" section, please, because I'd like to know what happened to it if it did exist at one time.


 * As many editors have written on this talk page, however, most Wikipedia editors believe that integrating criticism throughout the article, as this article tries to do, is better than segregating all the criticism to a separate "Criticism" section. See WP:CSECTION. Can you identify what specific criticism of "white privilege" is missing from the article, or not sufficiently prominent? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There is so much burden of proof shifting in these two replies that I have difficulty knowing where to begin. I will try to be brief and I thank you for your thoughtful and courteous writing.

1. Grayfell, the burden of proof is not upon me to prove to you that I know where I fall on a political spectrum. I am the expert on myself, not you. Any edits that are truly attributable to me are the *limits* of your knowledge about me and do not even remotely constitute enough evidence to openly contradict how I define myself. I only explained my background as a courtesy to your unwarranted skepticism.

2. Grayfell, The burden of proof is not upon me to prove that I have been blocked as it is not reasonable to presume my claim is a lie. Nor is it reasonable or respectful to suggest that I am confused about being blocked. Being blocked is obvious. The three e-mails I sent to wiki in order set up an account should be easy to find as they have my name on them.

3.Grayfell and Malik Shabazz,---This one is super duper important so I hope to goodness you take note of it this time as it this has been mentioned many times before by others as well---the burden of proof is not upon me to prove that "white privilege" is *not* a fact. The burden of proof is always upon the person making the extraordinary claim (in this case Wikipedia stating that all white westerners have a "white privilege"). This is especially important on controversial subjects.

4. The burden of proof is not upon me to prove to you that "white privilege" is a theory. Please look up Wikipedia's own definition of "theory" to see that it is indeed a theory and an unscientific one at that. Please also look up Wikipedia's own article on "falsification", the standard essential requirement for any kind of science, including the social sciences, and you will see how falsification is totally absent in "white privilege". "White privilege" is so overgeneralized, so unconscious, and so nebulous that it can't be measured let alone falsified, so therefore it is nowhere near a fact. I find it very disturbing that two people working on an encyclopedia don't seem to know the difference between a fact and an unscientific theory.

I think it is reasonable to question my claim that there was once a criticism section as I believe you both are quite observant of this article. However, as you seem to be aware, there are apparently gaps in what information is recorded about this page. Only a few momths ago, I assure you, there was indeed a criticism section, and any hotly contested theory needs a criticism section. Only through criticism, I hope you know, can science truly work and science is the only way you to get facts.

Sincerely,

Marc Lawson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.12 (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Marc Lawson, ranting about "the burden of proof" won't win you any points. See WP:ONUS. If you want changes made to the article, the burden is on you to build consensus to include something. I told you how to demonstrate that there was a "Criticism" section in the past; if, instead of showing it to me, you'd rather "assure" me that it existed—I'm sorry, but the assurances of anonymous editors on the Internet are worth nothing. And you say the article "needs a criticism section" despite my argument that including the criticism throughout the article is preferable. Again, your insistences and assurances don't persuade me.


 * Please identify specific criticism of "white privilege" you think is missing from the article, or not given sufficient prominence. You obviously feel strongly that a "Criticism" section is necessary; please explain why, because I've explained why not. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ranting? Really? did you even read what I wrote?

You have effectively ignored everything I wrote except that which supports your own agenda.

Let me make it very plain: consensus and authority do not make an idea a factual concept nor do they make an idea a scientific theory. Those are both logical fallicies: appeal to authority and bandwagon appeal. A consensus of non scientists is just as scientifically valid as assurances from a stranger on the internet. I'm not "anoynomous" by the way: I gave you my name.

Here is a qoute from Wikipedia's own page on the definition of a theory and it demonstrates the only way an idea like "white privilege" can become a scientific theory: by tests of falsification. The first step in a test of falsification is to come up with an organized way to falsify it---that is exactly what a criticism section is---:

WIKIPEDIA'S DEFINITION OF A SCIENTIFIC THEORY: "In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[4] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis'). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions"

WIKIPEDIA'S DEFINITION OF FALSIFIABILITY:

"Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proved false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".

For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.[1]

The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience"

If you don't change the way you define white privilege from wording it as an empiricle fact into what it actually is: a a hypothesis or at best a general (not scientific) theorhetical concept, Wikipedia is just a big fat liar that's all.

In addition, if you don't include a criticism section and you ad hominem attack criticism by calling it "the seemingly-sudden hostility from right-wing critics since 2014", you demonstrate not only that "white privilege" is not a scientifically grounded theory, but that Wikipedia denies an organized presentation of the major problems with "white privilege" and even stoops to ad hominem attacking all others who question the validity of white privilege. That's not just lying, that is some crazy propagandistic lying.

I don't know, if I were you guys, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I put out an encyclopedic article that deceptively purports to be factual, casts 77% of the American population in a negative light, and further entrenches racial hostility between white people and people of color. I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror knowing that I'm part of a big harmful lie like that. I mean, if you don't care about that, insist I come up with research that disproves an unfalsifiable concept or be an expert on the publication history of this article before you allow your conscience to even consider that ---hey! maybe you're wrong about this what's the point of arguing with me?

If you're not interested in removing deceptive content from the article, stop pretending that you are. The fact that after all this talk about this article's dishonesty from myself and other users, not a single change has been made to the article demonstrates how little you actually care about honesty. I have included Wiki's own policies in the original post and Wiki's own definitions in this post. So deal with the contradiction between this article and Wikipedia's own policies and definitions before you stoop to attacking me personally like I invented Wiki's policies and definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.12 (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Marc Lawson, your wish to reduce white privilege from fact to theory won't be implemented. Too many scholarly observers have defined it as factual. Try reading some of the books and other scholarly works about the topic. You'll see that the fact of white privilege is a scholarly consensus. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Saying academic consensus determins factualness is a bald faced lie. Not even the best theories with universal scientific consensus such as the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity can alter a theory into a fact. At best "white privilege" is a popular yet unscientific and unfalsifiable theory in the social sciences kind of like Freudianism.


 * You* may not impliment the truth. This article may prefer to maintain a lie. You may use bandwagon appeal or appeal to authority to justify to yourself that facts are what authority figures tell you they are and that facts are not solely the result of scientific tests of falsification.

But at least one person stood up to this article's shameful lying. I just hope someone else with more power and influence than I have will stand up for the truth on this matter as the currently defined overgeneralized idea of "white privilege" is one of the many driving forces behind modern racial hostility in America from all sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.12 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding in East Asia
Hello, new Wikipedia contributor here! I love that some people where expanding the topic of White Privilege into countries other than the United States. I have lots of good scholarly source info about East Asia on the topic and history of white skin preferences. Also an idea, expanding the discussion into gendered beauty ideals. That is a main part of white skin preference in East Asia among women and the beauty economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggie Davis (talk • contribs) 23:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome. Normally you would be encouraged to dive right in, but due to past disruptive editing and vandalism, this article has been protected so that editors without accounts or with new accounts cannot edit it. WP:SEMI explains the details. If you would like to post suggested edits or info about your sources, this is the right place. For gender, you may find male privilege relevant, and that article would especially benefit from additional perspectives. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism
Why exactly is there no accompanying criticisms entry for this article? Theoretical and philosophical articles across the site have accompanying criticism subsections so it's definitely permitted. I would write it myself but it seems like it may end up being a wasted effort -- positive control of information (especially from "reputable sources" such as Wikipedia) is likely a priority to partisan adherents.

Please note that this topic falls within the guidelines for talk pages on Wikipedia. I have no interest in engaging in any kind of discussion on the merits or demerits of the concept of "White Privilege." I am merely raising the issue that this article reads more like a pamphlet than a measured, dispassionate article designed to accurately portray the issue. Please do not prune this talk section simply because you disagree with the premise on ideological grounds. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.50.239 (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Another section for this? Are you are the same editor who's has been posting above? To briefly summarize, yet again, criticism sections are avoided by many Wikipedia editors, because they introduce multiple neutrality issues. It's better, when at all possible, to incorporate such criticism (only with reliable sources) into the whole article to create a more balanced overview. Many such sections elsewhere should be removed or rewritten, but some other pages may have other issues or sources which make criticism sections appropriate. If not appropriate, they are sometimes unavoidable, or a compromise. Past consensus is that this would be a bad approach for this article, and my opinion is that reintroducing such a section would a big step backwards. If you want to propose such a section, provide reliable sources as a first step. Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected-edit-request-10-30-2016
It needs to be stated in the first paragraph that white privilege is a perception and not a tangible real thing. White people don't actually get membership cards that automatically give them special privileges. Let's try to keep Wikipedia politically neutral guys and not push agendas. Keep up the good work.

-Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim the expert (talk • contribs) 08:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Not done. See the multiple above discussions of this complaint. Very simply, the article reflects the academic consensus on what the term means and how it is used. Grayfell (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, on August 23, 2016, you detailed several problems with the article. You suggested the following changes be made and also explained that you were waiting for consensus before editing. Here are your quotes from the "Objectivity#2" section ...   1.) "I've said before that I would like to trim some of the quotes from the lead, but since this has already been discussed, I'm deferring to other editors until I feel that consensus has changed following policy-based arguments." 2.) "It could stand to be rephrased for neutrality." 3.) "I can see a case for removing or trimming the quote ..." 4. "It also looks like it should be rephrased for brevity and neutrality, though." In the many, many suggestions that have followed there seems to be a consensus of editors who agree with you on these issues. Can we discuss new language for the lead? What are your suggestions?76.123.83.76 (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Hayscole


 * Hello, again. That's not a simple question, and combining that issue with the above edit request may be more confusing than necessary. I do not want my statements to be misrepresented by being used to imply that I think sources are suggesting that white privilege is just a theory or isn't a "tangible real thing" or whatever.
 * As I said before, I do not think the Gina Crosley-Corcoran quotes belong in the lead at all based on the source. Removing it would be the simplest change I would like to see. She wrote a Huffington Post blog which was, according to some editors, widely read, but we don't have any secondary sources establishing its significance. I don't think we can go by a blog post's popularity for an academic subject like this, and Crosley-Corcoran is not recognized as an expert, making this a WP:SPS lacking reliability or context. If a reliable independent source can be found which discussed Crosley-Corcoran's opinion, this could be reassessed, although I still think it would more likely belong in the body before being used in the lead.
 * Again, this has nothing to do with the larger issue of academic acceptance of white privilege as a concept. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hellooo, I can create a new topic for "Consensus and new wording" but I have a suggestion for this specific topic. (I responded here because I wasn't sure what you wanted to edit) Anyway, I'm not overly concerned with calling it a theory because the second sentence clearly states that it is a part of critical race theory. Although it could help eliminate controversy and unnecessary discussion if we just changed the first sentence to "an Academic term." Also it would help to remove the part of "western countries," or find a source for it. I completely agree with you about removing the Gina Crosley-Corcoran paragraph, in fact it seems like this article could be better served by simply eliminating or moving a lot of unnecessary and confusing information. Anyway, I would also suggest removing the last sentence of the third paragraph from the opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayscole (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality
The article gives too much weight to the concept of white privilege and an impatient user thinks reverting anythign that changes that is how we dhould proceed so I am slapping an neutrality tag on the article until this issue is sorted. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed to death a dozen times already. What is a tag supposed to accomplish? Grayfell (talk)


 * Agreed. An article on white privilege gives too much weight to the concept of white privilege?? you're not the first person to come here claiming white privilege is a myth or hoax despite the extensive sources (and sourced criticism of the theory) in the article. Scroll up and look at the archive history to see countless discussions before you got here. –  FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 01:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"Discussed to death"? You mean "ignored to death"?

1. This article is stating a mathematically impossible generalization that all white people have an above average amount of privilege. This generalization is extremely harmful to race relations in America as it makes white people resent a false negative generalization made about them and it makes people of color who believe "white privilege" to be a fact resent white people's so called "privilege"--cue racial hostility. Nice job adding to the problem, Wikipedia!

2. This article refuses to identify the concept of "white privilege" as a theory even though it is *at best* an unscientific theory popular in the social sciences. Users even go so far as to claim it is "a fact" when even such scientifically verifiable theories as the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, or the theory of relativity cannot claim to be "a fact"! What hubris to believe anyone can claim "white privilege" to be a fact! No number of books turn scholarly opinions and theories into facts. Look at history, at one time the scholarly consensus was that African Americans were inferior--was that a "fact" back then? Of course not! That is why scholarly consensus is always at best "theory" so is scientific consensus. Facts are only empirically measurable data.

3. We do not know who controls this article. Grayfell contends that it is is not he, but someone else. Ok.

TO WHOMEVER IS ALLOWING SUCH A LYING, NEGATIVE RACE ESSENTIALISM ARTICLE TO REMAIN UNEDITED AND UNREVISABLE:

What you are doing is akin to publishing the popular racial "scientific facts" in 19th century America that essentialized white people to all "possess intellectual advantages" above people of color, but now you are simply saying that all white people "possess advantages" above people of color.

I'm sorry, that is a lie, a very harmful and impossible to verify or falsify lie that is exacerbating racial hostility in America. If you care about not repeating history, not perpetuating racism, and TELLING THE TRUTH, you will not allow Grayfell's defense that this has been "discussed to death" suffice as an excuse to allow Wikipedia to lie like this.

You will actually do something to revise this article such as,

1. Revising the wording of the lead to reflect that "white privilege" is "a widely held theory in the social sciences"

2. Include a criticism section as this subject is controversial enough to warrant a organized set of criticisms of this theory.

3. You will remove the last sentence of the opening entry that attempts to ad hominem attack all criticism by labeling it as "sudden" and "politically conservative".

This is the second time I have been blocked on my phone's IP immediately following my posting in a very civil and coherent way on this talk page. So I'm sorry, the "coincidence" explanation for my block doesn't hold water. I am now using another San Francisco Public Library computer to post this response. SF is super liberal. I am super liberal. This article is super propagandistic and deceptive.

I am just an honest person who hates liars especially when no one is standing up to liars because they are afraid of being accused of "privilege denial" or racism or any other such extremely offensive and stigmatizing accusation.

If you want to challenge what I am writing please do so in such a way that follows Wikipedia's guidelines: specifically do not make personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.5 (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'm trying to understand the rationale for your argument when you say Wikipedia is "exacerbating racial hostility in America". Wikipedia isn't here to help or hurt race relations, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which documents facts as supported by reliable sources. If said facts have the unfortunate consequence of "exacerbating racial hostility in America", then there isn't much that can be done. Wikipedia also has a page on suicide methods, which could also unfortunately help people end their lives, but preventing suicides has never been Wikipedia's primary goal. By the way, whether you are liberal or not is really none of our concern. I think this is just a clear case of IDONTLIKEIT   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   23:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but since this is an admitted case of block evasion, (from a WP:CheckUser block, apparently) the IP editor needs to resolve that issue first. Blocks are not intended to force blocked users to go to the nearest library to continue editing as usual. Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Grayfell:

You say "a case block evasion" as if you are implying that *I* did something wrong. You know that I have been blocked wrongly--you have even questioned the basis for the block yourself.

The only explanation I am given for my block is that I am "trolling". Also immediately after I post something on the white privilege talk page, conveniently someone inaccurately attributes inappropriate edits to me from articles I have never even visited let alone edited. For the last several months, the I only posts I have made have been on this page. I have been repeatedly denied account creation and ignored. Don't you think that's indicative of a problem with neutrality?

Challenging false statements made in this article is not "trolling". Any user who says that it is, and then blocks me is practicing censorship: an attempt to silence opposition with force. I should hope you would be concerned that someone has done this to me, Grayfell.

Blocking me for disagreeing only shows that the arguments against mine are either insubstantial and vulnerable or the people who hold these arguments are dishonest and cowardly.


 * MediaKill13:

When I prove that an article is lying, whether or not "I don’t like it" is irrelevant--the article is still lying. Saying "I don’t like it" isn't a rebuttal, if anything it adds to my credibility.

LET ME BE CLEAR:

White privilege is indeed a reality, but *in particular contexts*; saying "all white westerners" posses white privilege is a vast over-generalization and a form of negative racial essentialism--aka racism. The key problem is the idea that *all* white westerners benefit from white privilege and that this is somehow a proven "fact".

It is also a form of racial bigotry to constantly presume that simply because I am perceived as white, that I must have racist motives, politically conservative motives, "privilege denial" motives or some other objectionable motives for challenging the false statements in this article.

Let me restate my motives and I kindly ask that you accept them as the truth rather than shifting the burden of proof by constantly assuming that there must be some secret unsavory motive behind why I challenge this article.

These are the 100% true reasons why I am writing here:

1. I detest lying.

2. I detest liars that get away with lying because people fear retaliation (such as being blocked for "trolling") simply for standing up to the lies.

3. The lie that all white people can be negatively essentialized--in any way--is harmful to *all* people as it is a form of racial bigotry. No trait is embodied by all members of a particular race. This particular lie has supplied people in my life to say hateful, bigoted things to me and feel academically justified for doing so.

4. Wikipedia's refusal to tell the whole truth about the impossible racial essentialism inherent in its own overgeneralized definition of white privilege theory, allows countless other individuals with racial hatred towards white people to cite Wikipedia as a justification for their bigotry.

5. The racial hostility in America is escalated by racial essentialist lies such as claiming white privilege is a "universal fact" rather than an unfalsifiable and overgeneralized theory popularly held in the often politically biased social sciences. This is because such lying creates additional resentment between the races. There are plenty of genuine reasons for the racial tension that exists in America; we do not need to exaggerate them or create fictional ones as that will no doubt worsen the problem.

6. Racial justice for all people is hindered whenever people in the media with power, such as Wikipedia, tell sweeping lies about race.

TO ANYONE WHO HAS DISAGREED WITH ME IN A CIVIL MANNER AND NOT RETALIATED AGAINST ME BY BLOCKING ME:

Thank you. I appreciate thoughtful disagreement. The indignation in this reply is not directed at you.

TO THOSE WHO ENJOY MAKING NEGATIVE RACIAL ESSENTIALIZATIONS ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE AND BLOCK ME WITH IMPUNITY:

Keep blocking me, keep ignoring me, keep ignoring *everybody* who posts on here. But it's only going to get worse because history never forgives proponents of any negative racial essentialism. You will one day be very ashamed for maintaining such dehumanizing bigoted beliefs about 77% of the US population. Yes I am using a new Bay Area public library computer. Why not block the entire Bay Area? I mean, if you see my civil disobedience as such a threat.

Sincerely

Marc Lawson

IP: 66.87.119.252 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.44.120 (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be making very many allegations without citing sources, and expect to be taken seriously. Like I said, Wikipedia exists as an encyclopedia. It does not exist to implement racial justice, or feed the hungry, or whatever lofty goal the human mind has conceived. If it helps in doing these things, well and good, but that's not Wikipedia's main purpose. Anyway, evading a block is a violation of policy, and can be considered disruptive. If you believe you were blocked unfairly, appeal your block. Evading them just makes things worse.   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   21:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Change to Lede
Hello, I am not here to fight with anyone, and would prefer that the perpetual back and forth I just scrolled through does not make its way into this section. Let's work together on things we can agree on, and not worry as much about the things we can't. An article like this will always be a bit biased one way or another depending on who is in control and takes the most interest in it, but, honestly, whether white privilege is described as a theory/hypothesis or not on wikipedia isn't going to make up people's minds and alter the course of history, so let's be a little more constructive and friendly towards one another. I think that some wording changes to the lede could benefit the article for all readers. I think that the lede is a bit long and wordy @ 556 words, and some of the content ought to go into the main article. Let's start by discussing the first paragraph, and then move on to the following ones once we reach a consensus. The changes I am suggesting to this paragraph would greatly improve readability and avoid unnecessary wordiness.

---


 * I'm not sure I found the best solution for the privilege wikilink, since it is a bit long, but I feel like it is on the right track as pointing out to the reader "hey, this is not the privilege that you might be thinking of!"
 * "...people identified as..." is wordy and unnecessary. If someone wants to dig though the many definitions of whiteness, they can click the wikilink for white people. The vast majority of readers have the appropriate conception of what "white person" means, and will further develop that by reading the rest of the article.
 * The distinction between whiteness as a social construct and as a physical trait is not necessary in this article, since it is clearly documented in the wikilinked white people article.

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for social, political, and economic privilege of benefit people identified as white people in Western countries societies, beyond what is commonly experienced by that of non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. Academic s in perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use developed the concept of "white privilege" to analyze how describe racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people.

---

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for social, political, and economic privilege of white people in Western societies, beyond that of non-white people under the same circumstances. Academics in critical race theory and whiteness studies developed the concept of "white privilege" to describe racism and racialized societies.

---

68 words -> 50 words, 26% decrease. Increased clarity and ease of understanding. 24.21.141.46 (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Note: Slight edit made to above 24.21.141.46 (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion?
As far as I know, non-existent concepts should not be articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.99.69 (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies


 * You were saying? 24.21.141.46 (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There have been two prior attempts to delete this article, both of which failed. (There are links to the deletion discussions at the top of this page.) I don't see why a third would be successful, but (as far as I know) any registered editor can nominate it for deletion. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't humor the trolls. 2601:1C0:8200:4830:F5B5:897D:DB37:AB2B (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

White privilege and the Media.
White privilege and the Media.

White privilege and its influence in the media is not a big topic thats is widely discussed in the wikipedia article and is rather underrepresented. The idea of how white privilege and the media and is often described as white supremacy, has risen a lots of awareness in the last couple of years, especially in News stories. People of color have realized that only good things in the media comes out if you are white and if you are of color only alleged crimes appear to make things national. In Maisha Z. Johnson article “ 8 ways The Media Uses Upholds White Privilege and Demonizes people of color,’’ She argued that how the media only brings to light the accomplishments and the crimes that are done by people of color. Johnson said, “the media chooses which parts of our lives to show – and their choices often humanize white people while vilifying people of color.” She is making the point of how color people get the global light if they have lived up to their “own expectations” and white people always get noticed for their achievements or if they have committed a crime they use other outlets to make them appear less harmful. She used the example of the two mass shootings that were labeled as “ Brilliant loner” As well as, headlines explaining the mass shootings of Adam lanza and James holmes as smart, nice yet quiet men. She argued how they hey “Choose Charming Photos of White Victims – And ‘Incriminating’ Photos of Victims of Color” Which, she assumed that it has an influence on how we view people. The media chooses pictures that can make us look innocent or pictures that can dignify people's actions. According to Nick Wang from Huffington Post, “news reports often use headline claims from police or other officials that appear unsympathetic or dismissive of black victims. Other times, the headlines seem to suggest that black victims are to blame for their own deaths, engaging in what critics sometimes allege is a form of character assassination. When contrasted with media portrayal of white suspects and accused murderers, the differences are more striking. News outlets often choose to run headlines that exhibit an air of disbelief at an alleged white killer’s supposed actions.” Media has printed an image that is very much like a pattern, they chose stereotypes of people of color to portray to us what we think is normal for certain color people crimes to be labeled as the norm. The Opportunity Agenda, ran a study in 2011 called “Media Representations & Impact on the Lives of Black Men and Boys,” it portrayed the negative  life expectations among black men. Which are reinforced through media that shapes people's views. Opportunity Agenda stated the casual topics media representation of black males. “In turn, media consumption negatively affects the public’s understandings and attitudes related to black males (sometimes including the understandings and attitudes of black males themselves).”

The missing white girl is also seems to be superior because of the amount of media coverage it gets when it involves a young, charming, skinny, upper class white girl versus a girl of color. According to the National Missing and Unidentified Person System, In the United states of America there is 100,000 missing people cases in every moment. Not all of them make global headlines, but special ones do and it's only if you fit the certain quota. Most of those stories only really matter if you are a charming white girl. In the article “The Missing White Woman Syndrome” by Robin L. Barton explained the reality of the cases of disappearances white women are involved in get headlines plastered globally. Barton stated in his article, “ race is the biggest factor in determining how much interest journalists seem to show in a missing persons case. He explained that the only reason why journalist plaster these missing white girls is because they are the stories that make the most money and is what the people want. We hardly hear many cases of girls of color being talked about on the news or on headlines that have gone missing. In white Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack Peggy addressed the daily 50 white privileges she encounters and one of those was “I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented” She applies that she can see her race represented widely because usually white males and  females are mainly in default  with the media. They are higher stereotypes for white people versus people of color on the media whether it's from news outlets to even to movies. There is alway white males as leading roles in plenty of movies and a lot of the media is owned white white older men. Print ads you tend to see white people well represented and hardly see other races on print ads. Shantalaleman (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for starting this discussion. It would be helpful if you could be more specific in describing what changes you would like to see made to the article. Here are links to the references mentioned:
 * 8 Ways the Media Upholds White Privilege and Demonizes People of Color from Everyday Feminism. As a blog, this is of limited usability here, per WP:SPS.
 * When The Media Treats White Suspects And Killers Better Than Black Victims (Nick Wing) - from Huffington Post. They also put out a lot of blog posts, but this looks like it's from their journalism section (I think, so, anyway, they're not very good about making the distinction clear).
 * Media Representations and Impact on the Lives of Black Men and Boys - from The Opportunity Agenda, which is part of Tides
 * The “Missing White Woman Syndrome” - from The Crime Report, which is part of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice
 * McIntosh's Knapsack is already discussed in the article.
 * However these are used, the connection to white privilege as a specific concept must be made by the sources themselves to avoid original research/synthesis. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * oh, nothing like blatant liberal propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8200:4830:B1D2:AEF5:2EE5:B4FF (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources aside, your post touches on some topics that are covered elsewhere and connects some disparate threads. I will try to break down the issues at hand to multiple replies.:
 * "the media chooses which parts of our lives to show" This is in part covered in media bias and may be another case of cherry picking. The media does select which events and stories should be covered and which should be ignored. And they do choose how to present each story. In researching or presenting data, they will probably choose only the ones that fit their narrative.
 * "vilifying people of color" In some cases the media may be reproducing age-old negative stereotypes about the so-called people of color. The criminal stereotype of African Americans can be traced back to the "black brute" narratives from the 19th century. With Asians you have the Yellow Peril. With Native Americans you have the "savage Indian" depictions. And I am not talking about the noble savage trope, but on the depictions of Indians torturing and butchering their way in tales of the American frontier.
 * "the headlines seem to suggest that black victims are to blame for their own deaths" In other words, typical victim blaming. It does not matter what is the crime in question (murder, rape, theft, etc), the victim blaming trope accuses crime victims of being "entirely or partially responsible for the harm that befell them". The thinking goes that if they behaved differently they would be safe.
 * "an air of disbelief at an alleged white killer’s supposed actions" I am not certain if this has to do with the idea that white people are less likely to commit crimes, or with some typical descriptions of criminals before their crimes came to light. "He was a quiet man, kept to himself, never disturbed the neighbors" and statements of this type.
 * "media representation of black males" I wonder why you exclude females, but this is covered in Representation of African Americans in media. A research study on African-Americans characters in American prime-time television from 1955 to 1986, found that only 6% of the studied characters were African-American. And that about half of them lacked in education and were of low economic status.
 * "missing white girl" We already have an article on the missing white woman syndrome. But out of your description of "young, charming, skinny, upper class white girl", it is neither the whiteness, nor the perceived beauty that I think is key here. The key phrase is "upper class". Members of the upper class have elevated places in society, they have wealth and connections. This is what gets the media attention. I don't think anyone would care much if the daughter of a factory worker vanishes. But the daughter of the factory owner, that is a tragedy. Nothing beats good, old-fashioned classism.
 * "white males and females are mainly in default  with the media." While I agree with the concept, this has much to do with the lack of opportunity for non-white persons in the media industry. In the film industry, for example, perceived white actors tend to land most roles. Including roles that depict characters of color. We have an article about whitewashing in film which covers the case. Dimadick (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to contribute this article to wikipedia and I need feedbacks. Thank you. Sources; 1.	http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=edp_etds 2.	http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/my-american-success-story-brian-gallagher/ 3.	http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-louden/white-privilege-and-the-deadly-effect-of-silence_b_7222776.html 4.	http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27417109 5.	http://uiowa.uloop.com/news/view.php/93518/explaining-white-privilege 6.    http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=history_theses

IGNORED EFFECTS OF WHITE PRIVILEGES White privileges in society are mostly ignored or overlooked despite its existence. Majority of the people that ignore it are the benefactors of the said privileges. Multiple studies have shown that white privileges bare effects that range from physical to psychological, on the people that do not enjoy it. A couple of counselors [link 1] around the world have agreed to the fact that increased racism in the world today can be attributed to white privileges. According to the Huffington post [link 3], white privileges pose a deadly effect that is silence because apparently, victims of this issue prefer silence than coming out in public. In an article written on cnn.com [link 2] a white CEO, Brian Gallagher admitted to be a benefactor of the white privilege that is currently disregarded. The effects aligned with the special privileges are significant yet doubted, almost like the issue of global warming. When explaining white privileges to a lame man, the popular term used is the befitting benefits of white skinned people over the others. This in other interactions can be interpreted as racist. There has been numerous protests and violence attacks based of the basis of inequality in treatment of people. For instance, the issue of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. It led to several protests and activist movements, some of which were bad and others peaceful. The main point being said was people felt George was not found guilty because of his color. That issue got solved as further investigations were made and justice served. A few days following that, three friends posted a picture on social network that went viral. The picture was of two boys, one painted in black with the other in white, wearing shirts named George and Trayvon, while the boy in the George shirt was pointing a gun to the other with the girl in the middle acting as a judge. This is enough reason to believe in the existence of white privilege and acknowledge its effects. The white privilege issue is very concerning though sometimes exaggerated about, it needs to be eliminated and make everybody equal before the law.--Afuakessie (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * and . I really hope that you are not going to try and publish your essays as is.  Both of you need to do a lot of proofreading for starters.  Check your capitalizing, spelling, complete sentences, don't use first names, use last names, and that sort of thing.  Also often in an article that can be contentious, such as this one, if you publish a large block of material and someone finds one thing wrong with it they will just undo the whole thing.  I've done it myself.  It is much better (opinion) to put stuff out sentence by sentence, being sure to reference as you go along.  After you write something up use the preview and carefully re-read what you have written.  Remember that it is very likely that an editor who does not admit that there is such a thing as "white privilege" is going to be the next person to read it.  Carptrash (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well said. Grayfell (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

WIKI PEER REVIEW:

'''Hello @Afuakessie, Good start but your article definitely needs some work! A few things I noticed is there are weird sentences that don't flow, grammar errors, and you need more sources! You also posted (link 1,2, 3) but didn't post the links below, make sure to post those with the article so people can check if they are credible or not. Make sure after every sentence or few sentences you cite the source you used, don't go too long without having a source present. Better to have more then less! This article contribution also doesn't read like a normal wiki piece and needs to read and sound neutral. Write more like you're stating facts and not an opinion! Best of luck! :) Adrianaa2016 (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)'''

Afuakessie, some corrections and suggestions for your proposed text:
 * "White privileges ... "despite its existence". This should be "despite their existence", plural.
 * "Majority of the people". This should be "The majority of the people".
 * "Multiple studies have shown" Sounds like a weasel term as it neither names or references any specific study. Consult the Wikipedia Manual of style for Unsupported_attributions.
 * "white privileges bare effects ... on the people that do not enjoy it". That should be "do not enjoy them", plural.
 * "increased racism in the world today can be attributed to white privileges." This probably needs context as racism is a worldwide phenomenon and turns up in countries with a majority population which is non-white. Compare, for example, Ethnic issues in Japan, with the long history of Japan's mistreatment of its minorities. As recently as 2014, the Korean minority in Japan faced "abuse and harassment" by Japanese right-wing groups, and foreign-born nationals faced Japan's traditional xenophobia and discrimination against them.
 * "Huffington post". This should be The Huffington Post, as it the proper name of this news aggregator. Also if you mention a specific article, please mention its writer. Attribution to a source that regularly publishes hundreds of articles may be too inexact.
 * "effects ... are significant yet doubted, almost like the issue of global warming." This verges on a non sequitue. Casual reference to the global warming discourse, which you expect the reader to figure out.
 * "white skinned people" This should either be "white-skinned people" with a hyphen, or simply "white people". Also note that there are multiple, conflicting definitions of whiteness and some controversy on how to classify people of mixed descent and light-skinned people who are not European (or at least do not fit traditional definitions of Europeans). In the United States, there have been controversial trials about the racial classification of light-skinned Indians, Armenians, and Arabs. In United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, an Indo-Aryan from the Punjab had to prove the purity of his ancestry and that he had no Dravidian ancestry.
 * "inequality in treatment of people" Which is actually a good definition of discrimination, a much wider topic than racism. Ask any woman about that.
 * "the issue of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman". Provide a link to the relevant article on the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Not everyone may be familiar with a case that made local news in the United States. By the way, the whiteness of George Zimmerman is a matter of dispute. He self-identifies as Hispanic, his mother was a Latina immigrant from Peru, and he reportedly has Afro-Peruvian ancestry. Based on the old, poorly-thought-out one-drop rule, Zimmerman would be classified as a Negro.
 * "This is enough reason to believe..." Have you noticed that you placed this sentence following the description of an online posting? I hope you are not referring to the posting as evidence.

Note that English is my secondary language, and I may not have caught all the grammar mistakes. I spend much of my childhood and teenage years being trained in the use of the English language, but I am not an expert on grammar and I have been out of school for decades. My memories of my lessons are no longer fresh. Dimadick (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

White privilege and the Media.
http://www.aejmc.org/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Journalism-Quarterly-1992-Entman-341-611.pdf The missing white girl syndrome is a controversial topic because of the amount of media coverage it gets when it involves a young upper class white girl versus a girl of color. [http://According%20to%20the%20National%20Missing%20and%20Unidentified%20Person%20System,%20In%20the%20United%20states%20of%20America%20there%20are%20100,000%20missing%20people%20cases%20in%20every%20moment. http://thecrimereport.org/2011/08/22/2011-08-the-missing-white-woman-syndrome/

The missing white girl syndrome is a controversial topic because of the amount of media coverage it gets when it involves a young upper class white girl versus a girl of color. According to the National Missing and Unidentified Person System, In the United states of America there are 100,000 missing people cases in every moment. Not all of them make global headlines, but specialones do and it's only if you fit the certain quota. In the article “The Missing White Woman Syndrome” by Robin L. Barton explained the reality of the cases of disappearances white women are involved in; which gets headlines plastered globally. “Race is the biggest factor in determining how much interest journalists seem to show in a missing persons case.” (Barton) He explained that the only reason why journalist plaster these missing white girls is because they are the stories that make the most money and is what the people want. We hardly hear many cases of girls of color being talked about on the news or on headlines that have gone missing. John McConahey stated that “Traditional racism comprises negative “beliefs about black intelligence, ambition, honesty and other stereotyped characteristics, as well as support for segregation and support for acts of open discrimination.” This statement explains negative stereotypes descriptions that support the segregation that mass media produces the coverage of colored people in the news.

People of color are portrayed in the media in negative ways because of modern racism and a study ran by Robert M. Entman called “Black in The News: Television, Modern Racism and Cultural Change,” explores Chicago’s local news television and white’s attitudes towards black people. In the study, they gathered data that support the social phenomenon called modern racism. In the article, modern racism is defined as “is a compound of hostility, rejection and denial on the part of whites toward the activities and aspirations of black people.” (Entman) News outlets have shown negative coverage of  people of color such as crimes and politics to appear as a norm to create certain attitudes and views for people. News outlets cover certain ideas to frame what is normal, therefore, stereotypes and practices are produced through the media. Entman stated that “this way television news appears to be helping to change the shape of whites’ racial attitudes to fit the system’s current political practices and social realities.” Shantalaleman (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Unreliable Section
Can someone please remove the following from the article:

Chip Smith describes some ways he views whites as privileged:[89]

Whites are offered more choices; 60%–90% of housing units shown to whites are not brought to the attention of blacks.

72.1% of whites own their own home opposed to 48.1% for African Americans

46% of whites had help from their family in making down payments on homes compared to 12% for African Americans

Whites are half as likely to be turned down for a mortgage or home improvement loan

Whites pay on average an 8.12% interest rate on their mortgage, lower than the 8.44% African Americans pay on average

The median home equity for whites is $58,000 compared to $40,000 for African Americans

It's poorly sourced, doesn't have a date to it, and unreliable, as the writer has only published one book (the source material) which only has five reviews on Amazon. Moreover, the book is self published by Camino Press which goes against wikipedia policy. I'd remove it myself by a user with a second account (same name, essentially) seems bent on keeping this.PUNk Limited (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed the paragraph in question because the book is self-published. Your previous attempts to remove it, first on the basis that the author is not notable and then because you assert he is biased, were not valid reasons grounded in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2017
White privilege has not been proven to exist. As such, I recommend the use of "alleged". There is no proof white privilege exists. 67.181.186.17 (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

❌. The article cites reliable sources, which is our benchmark for proof. El_C 05:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

can there be a criticism of the theory section?
Can there be at least a criticism section with actual issues with the theory? Kekistsni migrate (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, as long as it is properly referenced. Carptrash (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added a criticism section. Please refer to this talk section if you disagree with this or the content as per the rules of wikipedia.Keith Johnston (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have changed the section from Criticism to Critiques. The reason I have done this is that it is in line with these guidelines from wikipedia:


 * Articles on artists and works by artists often include material describing the opinions of critics, peers, and reviewers. Although the term "criticism" can, in that context, include both positive and negative assessment, the word "Criticism" should be avoided in section titles because it may convey a negative connotation to many readers. Alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments". Keith Johnston (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The reasons discussed at length in this talk page's history for avoiding a WP:CSECTION are not based only on the negative connotations of 'criticism'. They are also about due weight and proportionally representing the debate. If the opinion of Fredrik deBoer (nowhere does the Washington Post op-ed say he's an assessment manager, by the way) is worth including twice in two different sections, it should be supported by more than just his own op-ed. This is the problem with CSECTIONs. They use organizational tricks to emphasize criticism while also removing it from important context. Grayfell (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok I have some sympathy for this viewpoint. Even though technically, Wikipedia, allows for alternative section titles.  I think you can make the equal and opposite point that not including a Critique section suggest the concept is universally accepted which it is not.  However, lets put that to one side for the moment.  Even assuming I agreed I still do not believe this would justify removing Dr Jordan B Peterson's comments, it would only justify moving them to an appropriate section.  If you cannot find an appropriate section then this would justify creating a "Critique" section.Keith Johnston (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Do Jews have "White Privilege"?
I see this question thrown around a lot online and came to Wikipedia because it is a reliable source of information. I read the whole article and did not find one mention of the word "jew". I think it would IMPROVE THE ARTICLE if Wikipedia answered the question whether or not Jews are included in the group that has "White Privilege" and if so, does this mean that Wikipedia considers Jews to be White, and not Jewish.

If Jews are not considered white, and given that they have a disproportionate income (about 2% of the population make up half of the top 1% of income earners in the US), would it be fair to address the privileged status of Jews as something separate from whites ("Jewish Privilege"), or should they be considered part of the group that has "White Privilege"?

Also I note there isn't a "Controversy" section and wonder why this is. Anytime any article makes broad and sweeping statements about race, there is always a "Controversy" section, but in the case of the White Race, it seems that making the claim that they have some kind of privilege goes without any disagreement whatsoever. If there were an article about "Black Privilege" describing how Affirmative Action programs are institutionally racist and allocating community resources and opportunities to a class of people for no other reason than their race, I'm certain there would be a "Controversy" section.2A03:1B20:4:F011:0:0:0:20E (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "Privilege" is not intended to be a catch-all for things that benefit some members of a group. The existence of wealthy members of a group doesn't diminish privilege as it applies to another (overlapping) group. If Jews are disproportionately represented in finance, that might have something do with with centuries of history in finance. Centuries of history also influence white people's status in society and how they are perceived by both white people and non-white people. One way this is discussed by academics is through the concept of 'white privilege'.
 * Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, but the project doesn't 'consider' Jews to be white or non-white beyond what reliable sources support. There is no widely accepted pass/fail test for whiteness, because "white" is a social construct with shifting boundaries. It's an important concept, but it's not a fixed one, nor is it well supported by biology. There are no agreed upon rules for who is and is not white, so it must be judged from context. As a religion, there is no limitation on white or non-white people being Jewish. As an ethnicity, the whiteness of Jews and other Semitic people is debated within those communities, and any applications of the concept of white privilege to Jewish groups would require a frame of reference.


 * There is no controversy section because those are discouraged on Wikipedia. Regardless, to put it very simply, the concept itself is not controversial, only how it is applied is controversial, and only among a relatively narrow sample of sources. This has been discussed on this talk page many, many times before. You can review the talk pages archives, linked above, for more on this. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Other Articles have "Controversy" sections. What makes those Articles with "discouraged" Controversy sections different than this one? 2) While I appreciate your response, the Article doesn't even mention Jews.  I'm not asking for a personal explanation, as Wikipedia is not a forum.  I'm suggesting that we IMPROVE THE ARTICLE by including some information explaining how Jews either are, or are not included into the class of "White".  Failing to do this makes the entirety of this Article and anti-white hit piece, and therefore racist.  Wikipedia is not censored, and yet I sense great reluctance to "go there".  I find it difficult to believe that not a single reliable source can be found on how Jews either fit in, or do not fit in, to this category of people having White Privilege.2A03:1B20:4:F011:0:0:0:19E (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't feed the animals. Carptrash (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks please.Jacona (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You feel that I am attacking someone? Surely not  ? Carptrash (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't take it as an attack. Regardless of how useful or not my comments were, the IP was trying to shoe-horn antisemitic stereotypes into this article to prove a poorly disguised point that was totally unsupported by sources. No point in pretending that's helpful. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Carptrash, calling other editors animals is clearly not civil.Jacona (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine. Next time it will be "Please Don't Feed the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _s" and folks can fill in the blanks with what ever they want. You say, (hard to be sure since your comment is not signed) that you've been around wikipedia for a while.  So couldn't you tell where that posting was going?  Do we have to let it take root, grow, blossom and then bloom before responding? Carptrash (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Carptrash, when is it OK to dehumanize people?Jacona (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For some people (opinion) that's a step in a better direction. Carptrash (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The term "white" is not in used as a racial classification in most western countries
I've never seen the term white people used in my native language outside of the context of covering american politics in the news. The first sentence should be changed to reflect the use as described in the article about white people. I suggest the following change:

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in multiracial societies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24421p (talk • contribs) 07:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't use original research, such as first-hand observation. Grayfell (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * How would I references to something that does not exist? The sentence "(...) people identified as white in Western countries" is objectively false, and contradicts the Wikipedia article about white people. This "identification" is not in use in most western countries. For instance, in the German article about "white people" it says in the first sentence that this racial classifier is not used. Other than that there are almost no lengthy Wikipedia articles about "white people" in any non-English western language. Most European countries use the terms ethnic German, or ethnic French, when including other Europeans the discrimination western/non-western is sometimes used. 24421p (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I see what you are saying. The language is ambiguous. It could have two different meanings:
 * Western countries are where people are identified as white and where they have privileges
 * Some people are identified as white. These people have privileges in Western countries.
 * Does that make sense? In practice the difference is negligible, but I believe the latter is the intended meaning. Either way, your proposal doesn't actually fix this problem because the ambiguity is still there.
 * This concept specifically applies to societies which "mask racial inequality". Regardless of how frequently a country uses the term 'white', the underlying concept still exists in some form, and the term 'white privilege' is still used by sources to apply to that concept. To put it another way, multiracial societies aren't the only places where white privilege is applied, regardless of the language used.
 * As for sources, information must come from outside of Wikipedia to be verifiable. To avoid circular referencing other Wikipedia articles are not reliable. If those other Wikipedia articles contain sources which discuss white privilege, the sources could be used here. Grayfell (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I agree that my interpretation might not be the intended meaning. The problem with the second interpretation is that there are also non-western countries with a white population, e.g. Argentina, Brasil and South Africa. I suppose there could exist white privilege in those countries as well. From my understanding the term "white" as a classifier is used in countries with a composite European population. Examples of those are USA, Canada, Argentina and Brasil. The articles about white people (in multiple languages) have subsections about these countries.
 * I am not suggesting that "white privilege" does not exist in European countries. But I do not believe that "white" is commonly used in academic papers either (in said countries). This is a credible source from Norwegian research universities: https://snl.no/mennesket_-_forskjeller_mellom_menneskegrupper
 * It says (my translation):
 * "In the UN's first declaration of race and racism from 1950, it is stated that national, cultural, religious, geographical and linguistic groups are mistakenly mentioned as race, and that it would be better instead to use the therm "ethnic groups". Other terms suggested is "people" and "geographical variant".
 * This guideline is consistent with what I have mentioned earlier. Perhaps then it is better to remove the last part of the sentence all together, and so that the result would be this:
 * "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white." 24421p (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)