Talk:White privilege/Archive 13

Contrasting concepts
Malik Shabazz has requested that I "use the talk page to explain why you deleted 18KB instead of just reverting the addition of David Duke quote". That is an entirely reasonable request.

To my eye it looks as though the "Contrasting concepts" section has come to have all the problems of a "Criticism" section, including the tendency to become a repository for views that lack due weight. But it's worse that. Unlike a "Criticism" section it contains views with an unspecified relationship to the main topic of the article. Look at "intersectionality", for example. The concept of intersectionality is entirely compatible with the concept of white privilege. People often say things like, "I am privileged in regards to race and oppressed in regards to sexual orientation." So why is it in the "Contrasting concepts" section? As far as I can tell, it is there because the section has come to contain everything but the WP:KITCHENSINK.

I wanted to delete David Duke's quote because Duke is obviously on the fringe, no matter what the topic of discussion is. But the "Contracting concepts" section has come to be so ill-defined -- to put it in policy terms, it is apparently entirely acceptable to use original research to determine that something in the section is a "contrasting concept", to say nothing of due weight -- that I really could not explain why Duke's views did not belong in the section but the other views did.

As long as there is a lack of consensus, I will not delete the section wholesale again. But could someone give me a good reason for keeping the contents? And if we are going to keep the contents, is there a good reason for putting them into the "Contrasting concepts" and not incorporating them into the rest of the body using reliable sources?

-- Marie Paradox (talk &#124; contribs) 00:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for starting this discussion. I was concerned because earlier today (in my time zone), an editor added a subsection to the "Contrasting concepts" about David Duke's views and your response was to delete the entire "Contrasting concepts" section with an edit summary that only mentioned David Duke.
 * I'm not wed to keeping the section or the material in it, especially if it gives undue weight to some of the ideas in it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, I was the one who added the one sentence quote. The reason for it, was that there is a Marxist critique, Marxism, is by and large fairly fringe post-USSR, and yet there is several paragraphs focused on it. This is a consistent problem I have with Wikipedia constantly allowing undue weight to fringe left-wing opinions, but not giving any weight to the fringe right. Personally, I absolutely disagree with both, but multiple times throughout Wikipedia I have found that very fringe left-wing figures such as Slavoj Žižek on the page Racial fetishism, and Robert Jensen, Feminist views on transgender topics are given weight, when opposing views are limited to people who slightly disagree on method of implementation but still hold the same ideas. For the record, I am not trying to use Wikipedia to prove a point about policy, but rather just using what seems to already be the defacto precedent in an equal manner. ShimonChai (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * ShimonChai, thank you for explaining your edit.
 * If you want to discuss the real or alleged disparity between the use of opinions from the far left and those from the far right, you are welcome to bring them to my personal talk page. I will not discuss the matter here.
 * Regarding the use of Arnesen specifically as a source, I note the following (not so much for you but for anyone who might object to the deletion of the content based on his work):
 * Extrapolating what the "Marxist critiques" of the concept of white privilege are from one source, even one as well-cited as Arnesen, is prima facie original research.
 * After skimming over the papers that cite Arnesen, there do not seem to be any that say he offers a contrasting concept.
 * It ought to be obvious that saying that a concept is "particularly controversial" outside a quote from a reliable source is contentious labeling.
 * If I see no objections here by Wednesday 1:42 AM GMT, I will delete the "Contrasting concepts" section again.
 * -- Marie Paradox (talk &#124; contribs) 14:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know whether the section was adequately sourced or not but is clearly farcical not to have any criticism of white privilege theory in the article at all. It is a highly contentious subject like feminism or supply side economics. Was the whole criticism section really suitable for deletion? Liberty axe (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to see what was deleted, here is the relevant diff:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_privilege&type=revision&diff=851624344&oldid=851577697
 * If I remember correctly, the current consensus is that this article should not have a criticism section. In any case Criticism sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. If you find a reliable source that is critical of the concept of white privilege, you can insert the ideas it expresses into the body of the article as long as you do not give it more than its due weight. -- Marie Paradox (talk &#124; contribs) 19:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with simply deleting all of it. You talk about giving David Dukes opinion undue weight, there was only one sentence about that. I can see that you are not supposed to have a section on criticism (however for example supply-side economics has precisely that). So I think you have two options; either to try and work the criticisms into the particular part of the article they fit, or have something like a "Responses" sections from people who not worked on popularising the concept, which could have some positive and negative responses. The second sounds easier. Criticism of the topic is highly relevant by the way as this is an area of study not subject to much rigour and has a lot of flimsily proposed assertions Liberty axe (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Is a major paragraph on Macklemore reliable or noteworthy? How about multiple paragraphs from Theodore W. Allen? Or the opinion piece from Robert Jensen? An entire paragraph about an article published by Bernardine Dohrn in Lesbian Tide? Two fairly big paragraphs about the film "White People" by MTV? What about quoting racism activists like Peggy McIntosh who is a major part of the article? I am sure that you can admit, at least to some degree that, an article from a member of Weather Underground in Lesbian Tide, is fairly fringe. ShimonChai (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment on several points:


 * 1. Criticism is an essay and "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." In fact, there is no community consensus that "criticism sections are discouraged". This argument is mainly used by editors who want to bury criticism of a subject in an article that they have POV-feelings about.


 * If the user would like to establish community policy on this question, she should start a WP:RfC or a Village pump (proposals) about the acceptability of criticism sections. Until that happens and the community agrees with her, this is not policy and she is simply expressing an opinion.


 * 2. The article is extremely POV. As are this user's edits to it. 'White privilege' is a concept in sociology (used as a framing and defining concept in analyses and in advocating policies) and a highly controversial one, especially outside of certain academic disciplines and in society in general. It is not an unquestioned truth or a universally accepted fact and should not be treated as such in the article.


 * 3. Among the things that Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a science journal. When the article is about a concept in society, and especially when that concept is controversial and debated, the Wikipedia article should include coverage of that controversy and debate with a range of opinions representing at least the major divisions of opinion and not just cherrypick (and yes, that link is to an essay) certain favorable academics and a few supporting pundits. It should include dissenting opinions both in relevant academic fields and in pubic opinion.

23.91.234.76 (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is also worth mentioning that the article is hugely America-centric and almost entirely focused on the English-speaking world. The whole rest of the world does social studies too, and not just from a "white people vs black people" or "white people vs everybody else" perspective. But there is very little mention of studies of any other types of majority (or plurality or otherwise dominant group) - minority relationships, even in the "See also" section. 23.91.234.76 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have removed the content a second time. Several good points have already been raised about how unbalanced and bloated this had become. Who is David Marcus and why does he get to speak on behalf of all conservatives? Lewis Gordon get's three paragraphs, including a lengthy block quote. Further, disputing the use of the term "privilege" is not the same as disputing the underlying concept, so I am not confident these three paragraphs are fair representations of this position. Why does Lawrence Blum get two unusually long and detailed rebuttals to an argument that has not even been well-established as significant? It goes on like this.
 * The underlying idea of this section is sound, but again again again again, this should not be abused into becoming a backdoor CSECTION. This appraoch has already been thoroughly rejected for good reasons, and ignoring those reasons is not acceptable. Replacing "criticism" with something slightly euphemistic and vaguely academic doesn't sufficiently address the real problem with this approach. Grayfell (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The justification for not having a critique section on this page was that such criticism could be best included in the contrasting concepts section or included in the main text. Unfortunately the current cabal of editors of this page will not allow any fundamental critique of the theory, even that which is is well sourced, in the main section of the page. The height of absurdity is that even the word 'criticism' was banned to be replaced by the Orwellian 'contrasting concepts', but now even that heresy is too much.

There is tantalising reference to critique in the opening section, but while this must suggest there is more to come in the body of the article, it is oddly absent. What's more this critique is couched in the age-old canard that critics have misunderstood the concept, so they can be safely ignored. Worst of all the opening sentence is far too definitive. "White privilege", a theory highly controversial in conservative circles, is presented here as fact. I despair thinking at how many students and journalists must have cut-and-paste the disastrously misleading opening sentence.

This means the page has become mere propaganda for the theory. One day this will change, but not until a majority of editors consistently complain to senior open minded editors. This page continues to be a disgrace to the thousands of wikipedia editors who can have sensible debates with liberals and conservatives they disagree with and come to a true consensus which includes common critique. Instead editors on this page use force of numbers and bullying to get their way. I encourage editors to find ways to change this. Keith Johnston (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2018
"The concept of white privilege also came to be used within radical circles for purposes of self-criticism by anti-racist whites. For instance, a 1975 article in Lesbian Tide criticized the American feminist movement for exhibiting "class privilege" and "white privilege". Weather Underground leader Bernardine Dohrn, in a 1977 Lesbian Tide article, wrote: "... by assuming that I was beyond white privilege or allying with male privilege because I understood it, I prepared and led the way for a totally opportunist direction which infected all of our work and betrayed revolutionary principles.""

At the end of the quote is a citations needed, in "Absolute Privilege to Deprive: "Discovery of White Privilege" by Kuldip S. Randhawa at Position 2930/45% in the Amazon Kindle Version. Unfurtantly I don't have the page number. I hope I could hep. 37.201.5.63 (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, the problem is fixed, but in a different way than you intended. The book you recommend was self-published, so it's not reliable. It was published in 2015, and the 2014–2015 version of this Wikipedia article contained that same quote you placed above, so it's likely that Kuldip S. Randhawa copied from Wikipedia to write his book.
 * I went back to 2013 in the edit history of this article find the old reference to a Master's thesis, and I added that back in. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * that's not a reliable source is it? In any case, there should be better sources for it if it's to be included. I'm n ot disagreeing with the text, just trying to stay consistent with what I've said elsewhere. 15:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Racist propaganda?
This looks like racist propaganda, completely biased and entirely devoid of any criticism. I remember when Croatian Wikipedia was taken over by the neo-Ustasha movement in 2013. This looks exactly like that crap. Brainwashed people repeating what they heard from their favorite propagandists and steering completely clear of any and all criticism of their beloved ideas. Feelings over facts. The activist admins on Croatian wiki locked articles and fought all attempts to add criticism sections, correct factual errors or add unbiased sources. The problem on Croatian wiki was ultimately solved by alerting the higher-ups about it, if I remember correctly. Nikolaneberemed (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The "Contrasting concepts" section already contains quite a bit of criticism of the concept. Do you have any critical sources that you'd like to see appear in the article? --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it's too bad it seems that entire section was recently and indiscriminately deleted by a user (who probably shouldn't be editing topics with which they have a clear political bias). I came here to look for balanced information on this topic and had to resort to reading a older diff. Irked, I won't join the discussion occurring below, but I do hope sensible minds will come to a consensus which will go toward actually improving Wikipedia. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's racist, just semantic slight of hand. A whole field of study devoted to the redefinition of discrimination of minorities, as the privilege of the majority. But if the majority can be considered to occupy a privileged state, then what used to be known as discrimination becomes the baseline, or the norm so to speak. So whereas you formerly had norm > discrimination, you now have privilege > norm. It makes little difference what you call it at the end of the day. The only logical use of this term to my mind would be in societies where whites control the mechanisms of government and administration as a minority, which would indeed seem to be a privileged position. That's happening less and less in a post-colonial world however. Telenarn (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * - not sure that you know that this page is only for discussion of the article, not the subject. Do you have any reliable sources backing your comments? Doug Weller  talk 15:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My thinking on the deliberate semantic framing of the term white privilege is based largely on "Inequality as Ingroup Privilege or Outgroup Disadvantage: The Impact of Group Focus on Collective Guilt and Interracial Attitudes", which is currently the 50th cited source in the article and forms part of the basis for the "Framing racial inequality" subsection. . My apologies for not pointing this out, I had (wrongly) assumed that those responsible for the guardianship of this page would be familiar with their own sources. My mistake! Please let me know if there's anything else you're confused about. Telenarn (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Obviously the accusation I was refuting from the source in question was that the term is based in racism, when the evidence suggests it is not.The propaganda allegation is also covered by this refutation, as using semantics to re-frame an issue is not inherently dishonest, or misleading (in my opinion.) Telenarn (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * no one is responsible for the guardianship of the article. Again, this talk page is not meant for refutation of our sources, but if you can find a source that discusses the source you want to refute, we might be able to use that. Doug Weller  talk 16:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you've confused yourself Doug. Look at the talk section heading and look again at my refutation. The allegation being made in this talk section is that the article "looks like racist propaganda". The source I have used is directly from the article and (in my opinion) refutes this allegation. I have no interest in refuting sources - although I personally don't agree with all the conclusions of this one - but that is neither here, nor there in regard to the allegation made. Please let me know if there's anything else I can clarify for you. Thanks. Telenarn (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

This is just a socio-cultural theory and not fact. The article is biased and not balanced.
This article reads as if the article is fact and not theory. there is no critical analysis inserted in the article and the article is entirely from the point of view of being entirely accepted fact. This is not the case. This also fails to explain why this theory developed. the article simply states it was like the discovery of the electron or the earth being round. This is not the case this is a sociology theory and not fact. This article needs balance. At the moment this article is pandering and in danger of being an anti-white article and an article promoting white people = racists. This is not the case. this article is controversial but that does not mean that it should be only from a point of view which of there blind acceptance of the theory. This article is well sourced for only one side of point of view. This needs serious updating and balance applying. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 91.110.126.22, I've left a message at your talk page to ping you here, since as an anonymous user, you are not not pingable. The purpose of this Talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, not to rant about your opinions about it.  My inclination is to hide your post above as off-topic per the guideline at WP:SIGCLEAN, unless you can supply a reason why it should not be.  Mathglot (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am pointing out factual voids in the article which is shining a light on the problems with the article and how it reads. The subject matter is not fact the article needs to convey that. It does not. The subject matter is lopsidedly portrayed. I have pointed this out. The article reads poorly and is full of pandering. Again article comments not general discussions. I fail entirety to see how you have come to the conclusion you have and have actually read the comments I posted. I feel you have seen a critique of the article and have gone into defense mode. The above comments show where the article is making mistakes. The mistakes are fundamental and core. The article portrays this theory as fact and it does read along a very slanted point of view. The point of view slant is close to being anti-white and almost a commentary of 'whites are racist' in its tone. These are article criticisms. The original comments are not a discussion on the theory itself, you are trying to make them such. Please engage on the serious deficiencies of the article. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources that support the changes you'd like to see. You could also provide some examples of what parts of the article you think are anti-white. --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Some sources as requested. Plenty more can be provided these are a quick sampling:          91.110.126.22 (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The 3rd link is an 1891 NYTimes article. The 6th, the Guardian, just quotes Jordan Peterson saying white privilege is a Marxist lie. So what? The 8th is "Redlinemedia is run by Grant (@The_Typical_Liberal), Rogan (@DC_Draino), and Dylan (@Too_Savage_For_Democrats). We are three young conservatives who, just like you, are sick and tired of the fake news and negative coverage from the mainstream media." In other words, self-pulished on a right wing site. The last one doesn't mention white privilege unless you count comments. The Australian Daily Telegraph opinion piece is by Mark Latham who is a contributor to Rebel Media. The fifth is by a fan of Jordan Peterson. Most of the sources are just opinion pieces, mainly from the right. The only obvious one that isn't is Channel 4's Fact Check which doesn't mention the subject. Doug Weller  talk 13:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above reply is the reason the article is in the state it is in. It is a refusal to entertain any criticism of the article. The article contains feminists and others who would be classified as left wing, yet dismissals of those who give an alternative are ridiculed. The feminists are and others on the left are just as opinion based and subject to identical critiquing. Also since when were reliable media sources albeit ones that are disagreed with verbotten? 91.110.126.22 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please also find more sources here:            


 * The most troubling thing about this whole article is the portrayal of Peggy McIntosh. All she did was write an essay which got popularised. No scientific double bind research or peer reviewed work. Just an essay. This source sums it up nicely "It has been a relatively short time—just more than twenty years, in fact—since that term, “white privilege,” was popularized by the feverish, largely grassroots, pre-World-Wide-Web circulation of a now-famous essay written by my now-equally-famous friend and colleague, Peggy McIntosh." The article portrays this as some kind of biblical revelation. It was not. The origin of this term is from the essay of one feminist who got the essay and the term popularised. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Since this is the Internet, we all have access to Google as well. Copy/pasting links to opinions and such remains unpersuasive. This argument is especially weak since glancing at some of these links I can see that they do, in fact, accept the legitimacy of white privilege as a concept. This kitchen-sink approach is disrespectful of other people's time, and also completely ignores the many, many many past discussions of this exact issue. McIntosh's essay has been discussed by reliable, academic sources. Barfing up some pointless search results changes nothing. Grayfell (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

, With all due respect, you have been editing here for one month, and starting off with a battleground mentality instead of looking around and learning the ropes a little bit from guidelines and more experienced editors, is not going to get you anywhere. It's fine to have an opposing opinion, and experienced editors here will hear you out, but not if you rant about your personal opinions and quote irrelevant links that do not prove your point.

Here is a suggestion: instead of complaining about everything and everyone, make one single concrete suggestion about specific words to put in the article. Say something like this: "In section XYZ paragraph 3, let's change the words ' Colorless green ideas sleep furiously ' to ' These are the times that try men's souls ' ", and see what your fellow editors think about your concrete suggestion. You can do that here, or, per the Bold, revert, discuss principle, go ahead and make a bold edit like that directly to the article. If you do the latter, make sure you understand the core principles of verifiability and reliable sources, and how to create a citation. Follow the guidelines of netural point of view and due weight in suggesting or adding your content. If you follow these suggestions, you will have a much better chance of success. Finally, assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors; everybody else here is an unpaid volunteer, and just trying to improve the article, and the encyclopedia. Just like you are&mdash;that is my assumption, anyway, until proven otherwise. I've left a Welcome message on your Talk page with some handy links about Wikipedia basics. Please read it, and follow the links. What you do next, is up to you. Best, Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Please note as this page is protected I am unable to edit this page. Please check the facts before requesting that action is taken. In this case the bold editing you are suggesting is not possible. Thank you for the welcome message. I will take a few days and I will rip apart the article and post suggestions. Until then The above shows to demonstrate how bad the current article is and how biased and lopsided the article is. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, 91.110.126.22 (talk) you make some excellent points. Would you be able to parse this down into some practical suggestions for changes based on particular RS? You can do this on the talk page and then editors can discuss it and agree a way forward. Keith Johnston (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia - what the hell is going on ?
I am sorry, are articles actualy not being reviewed anymore ..... ? The entire subject is written like any of those claims are undisputable fact not a theory, which it ultimately is, a theory, with many flaws and an incredibly biased study. In most countries of this planet there is no such thing perceived as "privilege" associated with skin color. When you can't prove something, don't label it "unconscious" .... that's redicilous. Privilege is only applicable to social status in the overwhelming majority. Don't treat exceptions as rules, especialy when it's niche. I'm a "white" (light skinned) person myself who had to immigrate to another country due to war and my skin color, which is lighter than most the inhabitants of my new home, didn't grant me any privileges over others or save me of the terrors of migration burocracy. The fact you were foreign caused 15 years of hardship and intolerance and despite having myself well integrated and established in this new society there is still felt and factualy resentment and bias towards people, no matter what country they come from, because you are not indigenous to this one. Skin color has absolutly zero relevance. I've seen dark skinned people be more regarded and successful than everyone else. Whoever can and wants to be successful will be and that elevated social status, is what gives you privileges. Not your skin color. The entire article is flawed in its core and doesn't reflect reality adequately. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me as if you are saying that a white person (you) can make it in a white country (your new home). So what is your suggstion as to how to improve the article. Carptrash (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM. You should provide concrete sources and text for improving the article, rather than anecdotal evidence that the article is totally wrong. As you can see from the talk page history, there's always an editor every few weeks who will come in with complaints similar to yours. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 21:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, user TheMightyGeneral (talk). I agree with the thrust of your comments. Would you be able to make some specific suggestions about how to improve the page based on RS?Keith Johnston (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not the type of articles I focus on User:FenixFeather and I trust editors who do, to treat theories and individual claims as exactly such.

Keith Johnston For a start, something in the line of "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the concept (theory) of societal privilege" and a LOT more "according to her ( 'study', theory ) / him ( his 'study', theory ) " .... less matter of fact type writing. It is not appropriate to treat individual theories based on possibly agenda driven study, as fact. To be fair, it's mostly the intro. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. We are not going to hedge because you have a personal disagreement with the article. Please WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS elsewhere, then come back when you've succeeded. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 16:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you make an excellent point TheMightyGeneral, can you find RS to support this view?Keith Johnston (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry User:FenixFeather, who is "we" and what exactly are you "hedging" ? I'm suggesting proper wording in accordance to editing guidelines that are defined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch

"Please WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS elsewhere," <- nobody should be doing, and also suggesting this to others. To someone who claims wikipedia is fundamentaly flawed on their profile page, you seem very rash to ridicule an dismiss other people's suggestions without much consideration.

I am not here to argue with editors. I rest my case. This article needs improvements. Ignore it or do whatever you want. This is not my area.

TheMightyGeneral (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is partly fundamentally flawed because articles like these are constantly bombarded with unfounded neutrality complaints like this one. Yes, I'm a little disillusioned, but that doesn't mean I won't try to improve it where I can. Propose reliable sources that cast doubt on the existence of white privilege, and you're good to go. Please don't suggest we change our language to pretend this is some sort of fringe conspiracy theory when you have no reliable sources that indicate it as such. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and on your personal anecdote: at the risk of creating a tangent to the discussion, the existence of white privilege doesn't invalidate your personal experiences. People are more than their race. White privilege just says that sometimes, people of color are disadvantaged compared to white people, and therefore those white people have access to privileges that people of color don't. It's not saying that your accomplishments are not worthwhile because you're white, or that you'll never suffer hardship ever. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 18:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph does a perfectly serviceable job of defining the term "white privilege". Instead of rushing to damn the underlying concept with weasel words and hedging as soon as possible, the article can (and does) explain what the term means and indicate how it's applied, with commentary coming later.
 * There is an endless buffet of opinion articles accusing the boogieman of "academia" of overusing the term, or claiming that it's no longer relevant to modern society, or similar unprovable assertions backed by anecdotes and fear-mongering. A handful of editors have pushed for the inclusion of these sources based on a poor understanding of due weight and scholarship. No reliable source I have seen denies that white privilege exists, so the definition is not the issue. I have not seen any criticism of white privilege as term used to describe a concept, merely how the term is applied in certain situations, or how the concept is taught to certain groups or at certain schools. From reliable sources, rephrasing the lede to undermine this definition based on personal dislike of how it's applied would be non-neutral, and would damage the article. Grayfell (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

User:FenixFeather I'm not disagreeing with that in general, but fact remains that's not the rule. Like at all. It may be an expressed niche social problem in single nations like the United States, than the rest of the world, in a pool of much more explicit, globaly common and far more expressed social issues of cultural, religious, and nationalistic manner everywhere else, that cause even wars. Its not just a consistency error but factualy false. I definitly don't have the nerves to start editing this and then be drawn into editing wars. I just ask for for respecting the guidelines and treating such highly controversial and debatable topics with care, as they should be. Peace out.

"::The first paragraph does a perfectly serviceable job of defining the term "white privilege". Instead of rushing to damn the underlying concept with weasel words and hedging as soon as possible, the article can (and does) explain what the term means and indicate how it's applied, with commentary coming later."

Grayfell Why not do that from start and avoid it alltogheter ?

btw I don't know who or what you're talking about, I'm not targeting any specific editor. I just read the article and noticed that error.

TheMightyGeneral (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Doing what? The article already does this, that was my point, so I don't understand your question. Your dislike of how something is explained isn't necessarily an error. If you have a reliable source to propose, let's see it. Your comments suggest confusion about the topic. Your personal definition limiting "privilege" to the overwhelming majority is not consistent with the academic definition, and this article is about "white privilege" specifically. If you want to discuss how privileges overlap and interfere with each other, that's intersectionality, and this talk page isn't a forum. Again, if you have a source, let's see it, otherwise this is unlikely to be productive. Grayfell (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Grayfell What is even less productive imo, is not following the encyclopedia guidelines. I am neither bringing this up to "discuss privileges" nor to question the validity of sources.

Read my suggestion above where I point out the specific phrase and how it could be improved aka worded correctly to accomodate them. I am not confusing it in any way. Much of the article is correctly phrased as I acknowledged repeatedly, however there should be no implication whatsoever, in any segment, that the topic is more than an academic study / concept, as the article itself points out. Nobody denies the existence of such studies. That's not what I'm about at all if you're confused about my original comment. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * TheMightyGeneral (talk) Your contribution is very sensible and suggests you know exactly what your talking about. I agree tts very important to present the social sciences as theory where they are theory. Happy to discuss a specific change if you have RS to support it.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I note that in the talk the section above user 91.110.126.22 (talk) is making essentially the same point and has provided some sources which might be useful.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that other editors have made the same or similar points over the last year on either the lede or the neutrality of this page. These include: Nikolaneberemed (talk) &oelig; Telenarn (talk) 23.91.234.76 (talk) ShimonChai (talk) Jobberone (talk) RichardWeiss (talk) 66.87.118.12 (talk) Keithramone33 (talk) This might suggest you on to something if RS can be found to support you. Keith Johnston (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Given their previous interest in this topic I have left this message on their talk pages "I note that you have previously commented on the White Privilege page. There are ongoing discussions on this page which are connected to previous issues you have raised. You may find it interesting to review and contribute to this ongoing debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_privilege#Wikipedia_-_what_the_hell_is_going_on_?". From what I can see the editors who disagreed with them are very active on this page and will be automatically notified so I have not left this message on their page, however, if editors believe there are other editors who should be notified please let me know or feel free to do so yourself. Keith Johnston (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Controversial topics require more sourcing and more balance. I'll see what I can do. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Keith Johnston Frankly I am very reserved touching these sensitive topics because seeing how basic things like suggesting correct wording are opposed or instantly dismissed and ( for some reason I feel like that ) editors put into boxes, I don't have the nerve to even try. Big kudos to those who do. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The threading in this discussion makes it impossible to follow. Everybody please read WP:TPG and thread your comments so it is clear who is responding to what and when.  But be aware that things that look like one person responding to another are not, due to people just dropping comments where ever they want, without indenting. A mess. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Closing/archiving
I've closed the discussions one by one above. Each one of them started with soapboxing and went downhill from there. People are of course free to re-open them but I suggest you think very carefully before doing so.

If folks want to have productive conversations about changing content, by far the best strategy for doing so, is simply to propose the change in a new section, using high quality WP:RS and based on the WP:policies and guidelines. The worst strategy to change anything, is to create a section with a strident header and an opening statement condemning the idea, the field, or this article with a broad brush. Each of the sections above, starts out exactly the way, and went exactly no where. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Give it time. These discussions are ongoing. Keith Johnston (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no time in WP for abusing WP talk pages as a soapbox. None. I will reclose those discussions if they do not turn to discussing concrete changes to this article based on RS and the P&G. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * of course, I agree. Your approach makes absolute sense to me.  Keith Johnston (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia guidelines on closing a discussion can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Closing_vs_archiving. The guidelines are clear: no involved editor should close a discussion.  This is the relevant section:

"Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins.[4] Generally, if you want to request closure by an uninvolved administrator, it's expected that the discussion will have already been open at least a week, and that the subject is particularly contentious or the outcome is unclear." Keith Johnston (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

How can you not be referring to this as a theory?
I see all this debate on the Talk page about whether this should be listed as a fact or a theory. How could any sensible person believe that it should not be classified as a theory? It isn't quantifiable. It isn't provable. It is a theory put forth by people with strong political leanings. How is this even a discussion? Theory - "A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained". That's what "white privilege" is. How the hell is this being described in the same manner as gravity or condensation?

Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral source of information. How can it be describing a theory as a fact? This concept is the product of the social sciences - which are producers of theories. By definition. The answer to the problem is so blatantly easy - "White Privilege is the theory that . . . ." Anybody who is opposed to that is clearly wanting this article to be a slanted bit of academia, as opposed to a neutral source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1C00:B150:9888:645D:D4EC:41BE (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Truth.Jacona (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Privilege itself is an anthropological theory, see Social privilege.♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. Saying that privilege exists based on social status is a very different thing than saying that privilege exists based on race. But, even with the article on "Social Privilege", it is described as an "academic concept" and the "perceived rights or advantages". So why is it that, in that article, it is presented as an idea. But in this article, it is presented as a fact? "Male privilege" and "Body privilege" are also listed as "concepts".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1C00:B150:ED6C:1B2E:4FE6:99D4 (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I will be closing this tbread if the next post does not start discussing concrete changes to the article based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Where is the reliable source for that first paragraph, Jytdog? Because I don't see any citations there. Throughout the article, I see the word "concept" used repeatedly. So why is it asking too much for the word to be put in the first paragraph? That is, after all, the "above-the-fold" section that most people will be reading without reading anything else. So why not simply write "White privilege is the concept that . . . " Again - you have that written throughout the article. So why does the first sentence run contrary to the rest of the article by stating it as a fact, and not as a concept/theory? Wikipedia isn't here to be a biased academic journal. It's here to be an objective source of information. All you have to do is add a single word into that first sentence. Why is that so difficult to understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.209.120 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * To all the random IP editors that are editor #123798124712 to be offended by the existence of this article: Wikipedia talk pages are not a place for you to soapbox on your political beliefs: WP:NOTFORUM. Gravity is "just a theory" too, btw. Now shoo. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 16:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

To Jytdog (talk)'s point lets focus on discussing concrete changes to the article based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines.

I suggest the following change to the first sentence: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the theory that societal privilege..."

For reference the wikipedia page on Social Privilege refers to "Privilege theory" see

"Privilege theory argues that each individual is embedded in a matrix of categories and contexts, and will be in some ways privileged and other ways disadvantaged, with privileged attributes lessening disadvantage and membership in a disadvantaged group lessening the benefits of privilege." It provides this reference Garnets, Linda (2002). Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences. Columbia University Press. p. 391. ISBN 0231124139.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_privilege#cite_note-:2-12

Other RS to support this are:

White privilege is part of Critical Race Theory, which is a theory. The Routledge Falmer Reader in Multicultural Education by Gloria Ladson-Bilings and David Gilborn (RoutledgeFarmer, 2004) explains the link here https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=thrQK0UPziEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA49&dq=white+privilege+theory&ots=4VXYjUnk5g&sig=LeFH0HTM-OUitLhVXd9sC5DVKU0#v=onepage&q=white%20privilege%20theory&f=false

In addition

Lenski's Book" Power and Privilege (The University of North Carolina Press) is subtitled "A Theory of Social Stratification" https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=N8M3CwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT37&dq=privilege+theory&ots=OiQUu1w-PT&sig=GfgpsI9f-UBDwfZYi024uIvALRM#v=onepage&q=privilege%20theory&f=false Keith Johnston (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a piece by a teacher and while it is unfortunately full of jargon like too much of the literature around this, but it puts this in plain English: "white privilege is the flipside of racism".  This is the "invisible backpack" thing.  Naming it, makes it more visible, it doesn't make it exist. Just like the existence of racism doesn't depend on naming it. Racism and its flipside are not theories.Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Its unclear to me what this piece demonstrates vis a vis the addition of the term "theory". It does not claim that privilege theory is not a theory.  Can you explain its relevance to the addition or otherwise of the word "theory" to white privilege.


 * To add here is Jeffrey Prager on WHITE RACIAL PRIVILEGE AND SOCIAL CHANGE: AN EXAMINATION OF THEORIES OF RACISM Berkeley Journal of Sociology https://www.jstor.org/stable/41035186.  Keith Johnston (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To further add here is Eric Arneson on "theorizing" whiteness: "If, after a decade of "theorizing," the concept of whiteness remains a muddled catch-all, something that seeks academic and political legitimation as a cover for its intellectual incoherence, its proponents' goals, too, remain unclear." https://newrepublic.com/article/91844/paler-shade-white Keith Johnston (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is discussed in critical theory, per that article. It is no more itself a theory than racism is a theory. Yes, "whiteness" is hard to define. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have RS to back up your position? I'm not putting forward my view that white privilege is a theory, I am putting forward RSs view.  Can you reply in kind? Eric Arensan goes further than saying defining white is hard.  He says: "whiteness scholars' extreme and essentialist formulations make their categories and contributions analytically quite useless." Keith Johnston (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We are clearly reading the sources differently. You are continually confusing discussion about a thing, with the thing, and taking criticism of how a thing is discussed as criticism of the thing. For example Furber and  Sherry don't dispute that racism/privilege exist; they dispute how some people talk about it and what those people want to do to address it. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think we are talking at cross purposes. I am not suggesting a change, or providing any RS, which disputes the existence of privilege.  I am suggesting a change to add the word "theory" because this is supported by the RS provided.  Your implication is that the addition of the word theory invalidates the concept of white privilege, would appear to be P:ORIGINAL unless you have RS to support this view?  The fact that Critical Race Theory is called Critical Race Theory by its practitioners would seem to invalidate that idea. Keith Johnston (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have brought no sources saying that white privilege itself is a "theory". Please also bring a source showing that racism itself is a "theory". Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure https://www.jstor.org/stable/41035186?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.


 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LDPScEFOqZ4C&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=privilege+theory&source=bl&ots=FRlWcaJLna&sig=kWXV7NRILDwRFfCNm3bATkPcKpo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjO1M6UmobeAhUTT8AKHe_wACM4HhDoATAHegQIBBAB#v=onepage&q=privilege%20theory&f=false


 * https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-white-privilege-definition-examples-statistics.html


 * https://c4ss.org/content/28716 Ken Carson is a respected political theorist and author


 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BeM5DwAAQBAJ&pg=PR5&lpg=PR5&dq=privilege+theory&source=bl&ots=tpZ_1YAnB2&sig=GzfZEdSaBmU4HHQlOhZ0Zowbh00&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvkI2gnIbeAhWoDcAKHftCDWQ4WhDoATAFegQIAxAB#v=onepage&q=privilege%20theory&f=false


 * https://www.weeklystandard.com/david-marcus/a-conservative-defense-of-privilege-theory


 * https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/check-your-check-your-privilege/361898/


 * https://thewalrus.ca/why-checking-your-privilege-doesnt-work/ Here PHOEBE MALTZ BOVY prefers "framework" to "theory"


 * https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-origins-of-privilege The New Yorker prefers "concept"


 * I am not claiming racism is a theory, nor suggesting a change which states that racism is a theory. Under those circumstances I am unclear as to why you are requesting RS to that effect.Keith Johnston (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just about to ask the same thing, if we can find RS to say privilege is a theory, we should be able to call privilege a theory, why would we need sources to say racism is a theory in order to call privilege a theory? Tornado chaser (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keith, White privilege is just the flipside of racism. They are the same kind of thing. Neither is a theory. Neither is a tangible "thing"; the first jstor ref (which you clearly didn't read beyond the title), talks about "systems of subordination"  and discusses racism (what applies "downward" to people of color) and white privilege (what applies "upward" to white people) as aspects of such a system based on race (there are others, based on class, gender, etc, of course).
 * Both are discussed in theories, for sure. So searching for ("white privilege" AND "theory") is going to yield a lot of hits. Of course. Just like searching for ("racism" AND "theory") does.
 * This effort to play the "theory" card is the same kind of move that creationists make with regard to evolution - "oh its just a theory". Not real. Which is not going to fly. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I note the Wikipedia page on Critical Race Theory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory - takes the following approach: "Critical race theory (CRT)[1] is a theoretical framework in the social sciences that uses critical theory to examine society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power".  I would be happy to propose "theoretical framework" if your prefer. Keith Johnston (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Other alternatives might include "analytical framework" if you prefer that to theory. Here is wikipedia on Intersectionality- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality  "Intersectionality is an analytic framework"  Keith Johnston (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are still barking up the wrong tree. There are various theories / analytical frameworks / whatever that discuss it and make assumptions about it and what is best to do about it. Again "white privilege" is not more a "theory" than "racism" is. They are the two sides of the same coin. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, do you have RS to back up your assertion that, unlike intersectionality or critical race theory, white privilege is not an analytical framework? I have presented RS (not my opinion, which is irrelevant) that it is. Also the idea that white privilege is a synonym for racism is unsupported and irrelevant.  Your implication is that this page should be expunged with a redirect to racism. I cannot support that. White privilege is a real concept and deserves a page of its own. Keith Johnston (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI: This has been discussed before, in an RFC here.--Carwil (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * We cannot compare this to the 150 year old hard science theory of evolution, itself a hypothesis with lots of evidence to back it up. Comparing people who don't buy into this theory with creationists is offensive rubbish. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Do Asians Enjoy white privilege?
In their book, Beyond All Reason, (Oxford University Press 1997) Professors Daniel Farber and Suzanne Sherry contend with the issue: Do Asians and Jews enjoy white privilege? They argue that the success of groups such as Jews and Asians relative to the majority poses a puzzle. If Asians and Jews are more successful than white Gentiles, then standards of merit cannot be socially constructed to maintain the positions of the powerful and successful whites.

Farber & Sherry posited an alternative, that Jews and Asians benefited from cultural attitudes that put an unusual stress on the importance of education. But, they claimed “accepting such a benign explanation would destroy the rhetorical force of the radical critique of merit by admitting that at least some aspects of group success or failure may be due to the group's own cultural attributes, which may be genuinely functional or dysfunctional in today's post-industrial society.”

Their thesis is that the Asian and Jewish situation presented an unresolvable dilemma for proponents of privilege theory.

What’s more they argue that the inability of privilege theorists to take into to account Jewish success dramatized their “inability to make sense of ongoing phenomena such as the growing success of Asian groups and that of individual women, blacks, and Hispanics.” Farber & Sherry noted the problem that the critique of merit posed for women and minorities who succeeded in society: "If merit is a white male construct” they noted “then a black who succeeds can only have done so at the cost of some sacrifice of her authentic culture in favor of the oppressors.”

You can find a link to the book here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beyond-All-Reason-Radical-American/dp/0195107179

Moreover, recent studies suggest native-born Asian Americans seem to have overcome the disadvantage of being nonwhite in the labor market at least in regard to wages. This suggests that you cannot explain the oppression of non-white groups as being the result of white privilege, since they are not oppressed from a wage standpoint.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2378023117741724

Given there are two reliable sources for this, I suggest incorporating this argument into the article as follows.

“Critics of privilege theory note that the success of Asian and Jewish groups cannot be accounted for by the theory. Professors Daniel Furber and Suzanne Sherry argue that the success of groups such as Jews and Asians relative to the majority posed an intractable puzzle. They argued if Asians and Jews are more successful than white Gentiles, then standards of merit cannot be socially constructed to maintain the positions of the powerful and successful whites. They also point to data indicating the parity of Asians versus whites in regard to wages “

Keith Johnston (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The first sentence isn't necessary, and we don't use honorifics. The second third sentence fails verification (the article they point to, cannot be source for them pointing to it). What we do here is summarize sources not write essays and tack citations on. Please format the book ref, without the spamlink, and please also provide the page number where the information can be verified.


 * I'll note that every social theory is a tool. "White privilege" is like a flat-blade screwdriver.  The fact that a flat-blade screwdriver is useless for screwing in phillips-head screws, or that a jigsaw is useless for pounding nails, doesn't mean that a flat-blade screwdriver or a jigsaw are not useful tools, and you don't have to pretend that philip-head screws don't exist in order to say that a flat-blade screwdriver is a good tool.  (that sort of thing is discussed here btw).  Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC) (fix mistake Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC))


 * So something like:


 * "Daniel Furber and Suzanne Sherry argue that the proportion of Jews and Asians who are successful relative to the white male population poses an intractable puzzle for proponents of what they call 'radical multiculturism', who they say overemphasize the role of sex and race in American society."


 * would comply with the policies and guidelines and be a better summary of what that source says. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with your brilliant summary of the RS and very much appreciate you providing your reasoning, which I find compelling. I will come back with the page numbers. Keith Johnston (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Using source 2 for this is textbook WP:SYNTH. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 16:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've implemented this in this diff. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, but where do the authors use the phrase "intractable problem"? Or "white privilege"? They're too busy ranting about "radical multiculturalists" for me to take them seriously, but nevertheless, we shouldn't put words in their mouths. It's sufficiently bad that the author of the summary above demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to understand the meaning of "white privilege" and suggests the authors share his cognitive limitations. We shouldn't also allow him to suggest the authors share his thinking that the existence of successful Jews and Asians somehow disproves "white privilege". Not only is this original research of the worst kind, it's potentially libelous to ascribe these views to two people described by their publisher as "legal scholars". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Malik, we are not quoting the source. We are summarizing it. With regard to "intractable puzzle", the section is called "the radical multiculturalists' dilemma" on p57 and on p 58 they say "The radical multiculturalists cannot account for this success without attributing it to the exercise of power by Jews and Asian Americans."
 * with regard to the "white privilege" aspect, the introduction on page 11 says "We turn in the second part of the book, to a three-pronged critique of radical multiculturalism....If merit is nothing but a mask for white male privilege, then it becomes difficult to defend the fact that Jews and Asians are quite disproportionately successful."  (On page 58, they bring up the notion of whiteness in this context.)  Should have included page 11 in the page cite. Sorry. Fixed here...
 * "Daniel Furber and Suzanne Sherry argue that the proportion of Jews and Asians who are successful relative to the white male population poses an intractable puzzle for proponents of what they call 'radical multiculturism', who they say overemphasize the role of sex and race in American society."


 * Any other issues? Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner, but despite my best efforts I wasn't able to view most of the introduction online so I had to borrow a copy of the book. I suppose your summary is adequate, but I would argue that one could summarize their critique on pages 9-11 equally accurately by writing:
 * "Daniel Furber and Suzanne Sherry write that they are unable to reconcile the proportion of Jews and Asians who are successful relative to the white male population with 'radical multiculturism', their cartoonish caricature of anti-racist and anti-sexist theories in academia."
 * Lest you think I'm engaging in original research, I recommend their definition of "radical multiculturists" on pages 4-5. Remind me, what makes their book more credible than Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The book is published by Oxford University Press which as they say in Seattle, does not suck.
 * If you read it with some care you will see that they aren't trying to invalidate all analyses based on race or gender; if you are reading it that way you are misreading it.
 * If you want to provide a real alternative I am open to that. Please don't waste my time with more POINTY garbage. I am too busy and it is beneath you. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added Jytdogs' latest proposal to the article if someone wants to change this that is fine, but you need a better argument than calling someones opinion "cartoonish" in WP's voice and saying that's not OR. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Premature. I have reverted until we have a reasonable consensus here. There is no deadline here.Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * any other comments on this? I think enough time has now been given for any additional comments.  Keith Johnston (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

sources on Furber and Sherry
Am reading these... Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * response:
 * response:
 * response to responses:

Lead
I have a question about this edit:


 * Before: White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits people whom society identifies as white in some countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.


 * After AQFK's edit: White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term used by racists to justify anti-white racism.

The edit summary was: "Let's be factually accurate and not perpetuate racist stereotypes". Could you elaborate on that? --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Who makes this decision?
So apparently I am being disruptive and argumentative. Okay. I will ask this again in as nice of a way as possible - - - Who is the person that makes this final decision? Who decides whether the word "concept", "theory" or "idea" should be put in that first paragraph, which - once again - has NO citations or references at all? What is the issue with this? And who decides it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1C00:B150:5CDA:83E4:9286:55AB (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We do. The editors at this page. And (opinion) if you register as an editor you will get more clout. Though not necessarily your way. Carptrash (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Who is "we"? How many editors are there on this page? And why have you been given this page? Is it a majority rule thing? Is it by consensus? Who makes the final decision as to whether to put a simple word in to the first paragraph. Or, perhaps, demand a citation be given to support the supposed factual comment made in that first paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1C00:B150:5CDA:83E4:9286:55AB (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It's by discussing through this talk page. Stop being angry about this and try to find reliable sources instead (no, those sources you listed above are far from WP:RS). If you can't, then join the pile of other random editors who've swung by this page to complain needlessly about white privilege. Wikipedia is not here to make you feel better about yourself. We write content based on reliable sources, not whether your feelings have been hurt. It's already been explained to you that the lead is just a summary and doesn't need inline citations. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "We" is anyone who chooses to be here. No one is "given" anything.  However this is not a primer for editing wikipedia, you can find that elsewhere. Carptrash (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. You demand references, but then get to have complete control over what references are good and what aren't. The lead should be a summary of the article. And it's not. As I have said, the article seems to use the words "concept" and "according to". So why doesn't the lead? If you could take a moment from making snide insults (and why aren't you having your comments deleted as a result of that, by the way?), perhaps you could give that some thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1C00:B150:C8DA:7AE6:620D:21AF (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Read wp:RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay. You've answered my question. I understand now. I've just smacked myself on the head and realized what an idiot I've been. An article on Poland would bring editors who are interested in Poland. An article on cats would bring editors who are interested in cats. And an article on White Privilege would bring editors who are interested in the idea of White Privilege - which does, of course, mean that they support that the idea is real. I get it now. Sorry for the disturbance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1C00:B150:C8DA:7AE6:620D:21AF (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. That's why our article on Donald Trump is full of glowing praise for him. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 20:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No, that seems to be an entry that has facts. A few little opinions here and there, but mostly facts. Clearly written by people who, for good or bad, have an interest in Donald Trump. Quite different than an entry written about an unproven theory. That type opens the door for a lot of opinionated theory (both from the editors and the sources that they choose to let in the door). That's cool, man. As I said - I get it. No more arguments from me. I'll stick to reading about History and Old Movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.48.250.174 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Users 47.48.250.174 (talk) and 2600:1700:1C00:B150:5CDA:83E4:9286:55AB (talk) If you wish to make changes please make specific suggestions rather than general comments, and support these with RS. Editors will support well constructed summaries of RS that are within wikipedia policies and guidelines. Do not be discouraged entirely. Keith Johnston (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Per policy, the lead should summarize the article in preportion to the way that subject is dealt with by reliable sources. It isn't up to us as editors to decide what the lead is based on our own opinions. We must look to how the RS generally deal with the subject and try to (in a few words) summarize that (which should also be a summary of the article itself). -Obsidi (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Definition section
I stand by my reversion of the mass-tagging, but yeah, the definition section needs work. I'll take a crack at it sometime today if I have time. But if anybody else wants to take a shot, have at it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've taken a shot. It's much more concise now. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I also whole-heartedly support 's revision. Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Multiple Issues
Looks like there are people looking out for this page, and they recognize the faults, but don't want to point them all out in the lead, because that is too many tags. So I'm going to leave my justifications here on the talk page instead.

This article when I looked at it was confusing, maybe this is as a byproduct of it's layout. Its flow needs some improvement, and for some reason it goes USA->Global->USA.

On that note all of the research in this article appears to be about black people(sometimes latino) in the USA after 1900. Surely white privilege has existed before then and in other places, please globalize.

I can't tell whether this article is overly detailed, or just needs to be condensed, but it feels overly detailed to the lay reader.

By the same token it needs some context, it's too technical for the lay reader, it suddenly started talking about Critical Theory, without any context or references to articles which may provide context. I have absolutely no idea what critical theory is, and nor does the average reader. I might be persuaded to read on of someone could curate the subject matter so I had some context, but otherwise a section "application to critical theory" doesn't mean anything to me.

Regarding tone, I'm not sure about the relevance or tone of the following paragraph: Writers have noted that the "academic-sounding concept of white privilege" sometimes elicits defensiveness and misunderstanding among white people, in part due to how the concept of white privilege was rapidly brought into the mainstream spotlight through social media campaigns such as Black Lives Matter.[11] Cory Weinburg, writing for Inside Higher Ed, has also said that the concept of white privilege is frequently misinterpreted by non-academics because it is an academic concept that has recently been brought into the mainstream. Academics interviewed by Weinburg, who have been otherwise studying white privilege undisturbed for decades, have been surprised by the seemingly-sudden hostility from right-wing critics since approximately 2014.[12] I don't think contemporary misinterpretations of the concept are a matter of encyclopedic record. It sounds like this paragraph is just snubbing (possibly ill informed) critics. Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

NPOV
The idea of white privilege is controversial, but the article dosen't seem to portray that, criticism of the concept should be mentioned. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tornado, please provide WP:RS that show white privilege doesn't exist, rather than just slapping a neutrality tag on top of the article. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 16:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said racial inequality doesn't exist, it definitely does, but there is substantial political controversy over the use and application of the term "white privilege" as well as what (if anything) to do about white privilege and the extent of racial inequality, some of this controversy deserves mention in this article Tornado chaser (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No Wikipedia policy says that for politically controversial things in the US, a criticism section must exist. NPOV disputes should always be supported by reliable sources, or any random person off the street who is offended by white privilege (that's a lot of people) would immediately put an NPOV tag on this page. Do you see why sources are important with this? – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 20:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that sources are important, and I will look for sources when I get more time, but I am pretty sure we can find RS that talk about the controversy, of course I don't want to add random unsourced opinions. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's already a section White_privilege that talks about how some white people are unhappy and angry when white privilege is pointed out. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 21:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added another sentence to that section. Will add more as I find more sources. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 21:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This small section implies that criticism of the idea of white privilege or the application of the term is all wrong, violation NPOV if this is the only way controversy is discussed. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused how it say something is "wrong". It doesn't make any claims about truth, just describes negative reactions to the concept. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 23:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, as I'm reading this article, I'm seeing plenty of different takes on the concept. Which viewpoints do you believe are unduly missing from the article? I still don't know what you think is missing. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 23:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, Fenix, Tornado is just saying that it is "controversial" - not that it doesn't exist. Second of all, the citations and references showing that it is a concept, and not an absolute fact, come from the Wikipedia article itself. As I wrote above, when referring to this idea, the words "concept" and "According to" are used throughout the article. So why is it such a big deal to put that word in the first paragraph (which, I can't stress this enough - has NO citations in it but is, instead, just the writing of some guy who started the article). What's the big deal, Fenix? Why are you so against putting a word in that first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1C00:B150:99BB:F223:3700:A1CA (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia has a policy called WP:DUE weight. For something to be considered controversial, there have to be quite a few sources on either side of this topic. The preponderance of sources however, indicate that white privilege is not a controversial topic. Go look at the talk page archives. People come here all the time asking that this article hedge because they're offended by the existence of white privilege. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 17:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Not controversial? Dear god, man? How detached are you from the world that you think that this is not a controversial topic. Here are a few sources. And again, I want to know why that first paragraph (the one that we are debating) doesn't have a single citation. Shouldn't your steadfast adherence to the rules have a problem with that? -

https://thoughtcatalog.com/dave-nappi/2014/04/a-logical-case-for-the-non-existence-of-white-privilege-and-institutional-racism/

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/the_lies_of_white_privilege.html

https://www.wnd.com/2016/05/white-privilege-debunked/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1C00:B150:5CDA:83E4:9286:55AB (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The first section of an article (variously called "the lede" or "the lead") is supposed to be a summary of the articles and frequently does not employ references. The points covered in the lede are supposed to be discussed and referenced later. Carptrash (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser (talk) You make some interesting points. For this discussion to be constructive please propose a concrete change to the article and support this with RS within wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Keith Johnston (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: An article that devotes two paragraphs of a four-paragraph lead to misgivings regarding the underlying entity has adequately portrayed the fact that it is controversial.--Carwil (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead should summarize the body of the article, a controversy section, or more mention of criticism in the body of the article would be a good idea, rather than having the criticism in the lead but nowhere else. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a criticism subsection under United States but was reverted, you have a point about weaving in the criticism, but what was wrong with my summery of the sources? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a summary of what that source says. Thanks for acknowledging that weaving in, is better. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I know you think I improperly summarized the source, why? what was wrong with the text I added? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He doesn't deny the fact of of white privilege, for one thing, which is what this WP is about. In that piece he writes "Privilege theory is based on a 1989 essay by Peggy McIntosh, in which she lays out the subtle ways in which white people have advantages that they often don’t even realize" and later "It talked about how white people have an easier time getting a cab, or an apartment, or seeing themselves reflected on TV."  He doesn't dispute these things. They are examples of white privilege.  You didn't summarize what this source says with any care.  (fwiw you could probably also read this piece by him published in 2017). Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said he denies that racial inequalities exist, in fact I included the line "He says conservatives must admit "that racism and bigotry does affect the opportunities of marginalized people"" what im trying to add to the article is the fact that there is a legitimate view in favor of the colorblind approach to ending racism, I have never argued that racial inequalities do not exist. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm dubious about whether one author's opinion on how to square the circle of his preferred method of resolving racial inequality with his acknowledgement of the existence of white privilege, which would work against his preferred method is due being explicitly referenced in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You left out the topic of this article, when summarizing the source. I said nothing about what you believe or don't believe and it is utterly irrelevant. And the piece doesn't talk about "ending racism"; this too has nothing to do with summarizing the source Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tornado chaser (talk) could you propose your contribution in a new section on this talk page? I'd be interested to discuss it, especially as the critique outlined in the lede has no payoff in the body of the text. Despite what is claimed by some editors, there is no consensus on wikipedia about weaving-in critique.  Many pages have separate critique sections but, for a variety of reasons this page has neither a critique section, nor does it adequately weave-in critique of the theory or practice of white privilege.Keith Johnston (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with those who want to see a suggested edit, supported by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Someone please write up a good criticism section supported by RS. I'll get to it eventually if no one else does, but I got other things on my plate right now. -Obsidi (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Obsidi (talk) Relatively recently editors decided against a critique section in preference for weaving the critique into the article. However, at present there is very little critique weaved into the article.  I would suggest any changes are proposed incrementally and throughly discussed on the talk page.  I would encourage additional consideration of properly sourced critique to correct this articles lack of neutrality.  Keith Johnston (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Obsidi is blocked. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)