Talk:White privilege/Archive 14

Media lit White Privilege
As part of my class, I am assigned to analyze and give feedback on this article.

•	I believe each fact is referenced with an appropriate and reliable source. Each fact or theory in the article has a number that represents the source they used. When I clicked on the number it drops me down to the bottom of the page with a link towards the article that information came from. There is a total of one hundred forty-three references, most with links to where that information came from, as long as a bibliography. I think it would be difficult for all these sources to be bias. There are articles and essays written by both African Americans and White people so there is a view from both perspectives. Some of the sources do not have a link to anything which could maybe cause a problem. I tried reference fifteen, it brought me to a scholarly book on a pdf. The book was international Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies. I also checked reference one hundred thirty-six, when I clicked this link, it brought me to a page not found. •	I feel as everything in the article is relevant towards the topic. They break it off into different sub-categories and issues in specific countries. They also have how it originated and expanded throughout decades, starting at pre-1970’s. Then went to the 1970’s to early 2000’s, and now they call it social media era which I think may cause a little confusion. In the pre- 1970’s era they talk about how civil rights were involved in white privilege. They use quotes directly from their references which help explain the differences between white privilege and others. White privilege was originally started as a way of residential segregation. Critical race theory has a solid summary with a link to the main article. It gives enough to get point across but a link to dig deeper. Many of the sections have sections with brief sections with links towards the full articles. I do not think anything is really out of date because they have sources to back up that information. One thing that could be changed is that there is to many sub categories. This may lead to people getting confused and getting lost with so much different information being thrown their way. •	I think the article is well represented from multiple different point of views. They mention things from many different eras and countries, getting information from all over the place.

Jacksasso39 (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

In short
This white privilege thing is never quantified. Apparently can't be measured. All we're offered are stats on income and similar non sequiturs. The only possible reason for difference in income is obviously white privilege, and we can see that it is in fact white privilege because Asians are kicking everyone's ass in this regard. Also, O. J. Simpson apparently has white privilege, as do other wealthy and well-connected people of all races. So, besides requiring a leap into faith and lacking logic or supporting data, the hypothesis of white privilege appears to be in stark contrast with reality. Which, to be honest, is a common theme in postmodernist "thinking." Fun fact - Peter Boghossian recently exposed postmodernism for the umpteenth time in the latest Sokal-style hoax, where he and his colleagues got a bunch of nonsensical papers published in postmodernist journals, even getting some awards if I remember correctly. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Sokal-Squared-Is-Huge/244714 And the pomo generator has been online for years. www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/ I really can't believe we're still flogging the dead postmodernist horse that was stillborn to begin with. Nikolaneberemed (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nikolaneberemed (talk) would you like to propose any specific changes to this page? Given its controversial nature every change needs to be accompanied with RS that editors with different political viewpoints can agree is RS, even if we don't agree with the conclusions of the RS. Keith Johnston (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Give the editor a chance to respond. Not everyone checks wikipedia as frequently as others.  Closing down talks prematurely sets a poor example, especially when there is an outstanding question Keith Johnston (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a forum. We don't have to waste our time with this rant that has nothing to do with the article itself. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 17:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * user Nikolaneberemed (talk) raises fundamental issues directly related to white privilege theory: do Asians enjoy white privilege? and (in connection to Sokal Squared) to what extent can we rely on peer-reviewed journal as RS? and to what extent should we rely on these to the exclusion of other sources?  If RS can be found to sustain these arguments they would make interesting additions. Keith Johnston (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they don't raise "issues". If you understood white privilege, you'd know that it doesn't say "all white people are automatically more successful than asian people". It just says that they're afforded certain privileges societally. It's not a blanket "white people suck and have never accomplished anything except for coasting by on their own privilege" sort of deal, it just says that hey, sometimes, being white in the US can give you the benefit of the doubt from time to time. And yes, it turns out, when the vast majority of recent Asian immigration to the US is a selected sample of hard working people, they turn out to be pretty successful! White privilege is a widely accepted phenomenon. People who dispute its existence are WP:FRINGE and it's undue to treat it the opposite way as if it's some sort of crazy conspiracy theory. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 16:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * When you say that people who dispute the existence of white privilege are WP:FRINGE, what reliable sources are you basing that assessment on? There's a fundamental issue here: what do we consider to be "reliable sources," and what, exactly, are those sources reliable for? It seems that what's going on in this article is that papers from a certain corner of academia (generally, "Whiteness Studies" and related fields) are being referenced as "reliable sources," to make claims about how the real world works. That would be fine if we were talking about a field where there are clear, objective measures of truth, like biology, chemistry or even history, but we're not talking about such a field. We're talking about a field which is highly political and subjective, in which the people writing are not merely studying some phenomenon objectively, but are arguably activists campaigning for certain political views. Basically, what I think this article is doing is elevating political essays to the status of reliable sources for statements of objective fact. Yes, you can find any number of essays written by academics in "Whiteness studies" and similar disciplines that state that "white privilege" exists. But are those academics actually engaged in an objective study of society, or are they activists writing what are essentially political essays? The recent Sokal Squared hoax is a good illustration of how treating these disciplines as if they were scientific disciplines is highly questionable.
 * I'll give you an example of one way in which the article could be changed to be more neutral and objective. The lede currently reads
 * 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.
 * This opening sentence appears to make a claim that white privilege is a real phenomenon. That's a claim made by people in "Whiteness studies" and similar disciplines, but those disciplines aren't scientific or objective fields. The lede could be changed to the following:
 * White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for 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.
 * Fundamentally, by calling everyone who doesn't accept the interpretive framework espoused by people in "Whiteness studies" WP:FRINGE, you're treating that field as an objective study of reality, which is something I think is highly questionable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You like others appear to mistake the thing for discussions of thing. White privilege is exactly the flipside of racism. "racism" is used to discuss the effects on the objects of it; in places where the racism is against people who aren't white, "white privilege" is the effect on white people. The flipside. That is all it is.  Lots of debate about how far it goes (does it make the concept of "merit" fake, for example?) and thus what remedies might be appropriate -- but it exists, as sure as racism does. Please don't confuse the thing, and discussions of the thing. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You're stating some pretty controversial claims as if they were obvious, as if no sane person would object. But the idea that not facing racial prejudice is a "privilege" is a highly controversial idea. It's an idea that's advanced within certain academic disciplines, about whose authority to make definitive statements about objective reality I'm expressing doubt. The article previously quoted criticism of the concept of white privilege, to the effect that one cannot call a right that everyone should enjoy a "privilege." The article also used to include criticism of the concept, on the basis that there's no meaningful way in which one can say an unemployed white worker enjoys a "privilege" from their skin color that is denied a black millionaire. The standard response within "Whiteness studies" might be to invoke "intersectionality," but here you can see that we're getting into territory where different people with different ways of interpreting society are arguing back and forth. Not everyone thinks the idea of "intersectionality" saves the concept of "white privilege" from its obvious flaws (e.g., the existence of poor whites). This article is treating one particular political interpretation of our society as if it were true. Again, I don't think the sources that are being used to justify this choice should be treated as reliable sources for statements of fact, because I'm skeptical about treating "Whiteness studies" and similar disciplines as if they were akin to objective disciplines like biology, chemistry or history. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thucydides411, to quote a "very stable genius", "THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE", "that's such a racist question". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What do 3 unrelated quotes from an incoherent President mean when strung together? If you mean to accuse Thucydides411 of racism please don't, otherwise you may want to clarify your comment. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing anybody of racism, but I am saying that repeatedly asking others to prove to you what is right in front of your face because you prefer not to look at it is asking a racist question. Obviously somebody who can assert that an unemployed white worker enjoys no privilege from their white skin color that is denied a black millionaire has never been shopping while black—which, of course, is not his fault—but he evidently hasn't read a newspaper or watched the TV news in this century. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to engage in a political debate with you. My point is that the truth claims being made in this article are political interpretations, which reasonable people can disagree with, and that the sources being used to ground those claims are not reliable sources for statements of fact.
 * I'd appreciate if you took the personal tone down a notch. There's no reason for you to be making the sort of personal attacks you're making. If you can't refrain from attacking me personally, I'll have to take up this behavioral issue in the appropriate venue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As for the content of the article, I support the addition of more neutral mention of controversy, FenixFeather makes some good points about the different between whiteness studies and the natural sciences, as well as the fact that some academics "are arguably activists campaigning for certain political views". But Jytdog is right that the controversy surrounds the extent and significance of white privilege, and what to do or not do about it, rather than the existence of white privilege at all. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

White Supremacy
White Privilege

It is important to know the differences between white Privilege and white supremacy, white privilege is that society believes white people have an advantage in life, while white supremacy is a racist belief that white people are superior. White supremacy is a culture, which is a way of life, beliefs, and values, White privilege is more of an idea or theory. White privilege is something that is usually disregarded by white people, while a white Supremes’ embraces the idea of white people being superior. White supremacy started as a group and culture. White privilege is something people believe they are born into.

WORKS CITED

Jones, Kenneth, and Tema Okun. “Dismantling Racism: a Workbook for Social Change.” White Supremacy Culture, 2001, www.cwsworkshop.org/PARC_site_B/dr-culture.html. Team, SURJ. “WHITE SUPREMACY CULTURE.” SHOWING UP FOR RACIAL JUSTICE, www.showingupforracialjustice.org/white-supremacy-culture.html.

McIntosh, Peggy. “White Privilege: Unpacking and Invisible Knapsack.” Pdf., 1990. Jacob, Hess, and Phil Neisser. “White Privilege.” AllSides, 2018, www.allsides.com/dictionary/white-privilege. ≈≈≈≈ Jack Sasso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksasso39 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from MCO 220 - Over all I think you did well on defining white privilege. However, it might be worth trying point out the difference between white supremacy and white privilege just a little more. Other than that, I noticed two run on sentences so instead of starting your edits with two long sentences you could break them down into two each and have four regular sentences. Those are just my little suggestions, good job though!

DeannaD97 (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

White Privilege part two

It is important to know the differences between white Privilege and white supremacy; white privilege is that society believes white people have an advantage in life. While white supremacy is a racist belief that white people are superior (citation 3). “White supremacy is a culture, which is a way of life, beliefs, and values, White privilege is more of an idea or theory” (citation 1). White privilege is something that is usually disregarded by white people, while a white Supremes’ embraces the idea of white people being superior (citation 2). White supremacy started as a group and culture (citation 4). White privilege is something people believe they are born into.

WORKS CITED

1.	Jones, Kenneth, and Tema Okun. “Dismantling Racism: a Workbook for Social Change.” White Supremacy Culture, 2001, www.cwsworkshop.org/PARC_site_B/dr-culture.html. 2.	Team, SURJ. “WHITE SUPREMACY CULTURE.” SHOWING UP FOR RACIAL JUSTICE, www.showingupforracialjustice.org/white-supremacy-culture.html. 3.	McIntosh, Peggy. “White Privilege: Unpacking and Invisible Knapsack.” Pdf., 1990. 4.	Jacob, Hess, and Phil Neisser. “White Privilege.” AllSides, 2018, www.allsides.com/dictionary/white-privilege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksasso39 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

CNN legal analyst says black people can have white privilege
CNN legal analyst Areva Martin has accused Sirius XM radio host David Webb of having white privilege, despite the fact that Webb is black.

Here’s a transcript:

David Webb: “Shouldn’t their requirement, their primary requirement, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of network, be that they are capable of covering politics? For instance, if you’re going to cover political campaigns, sports may not be the most qualified background. And that brings to the point of if people want to get into these fields regardless of color, I’ve chosen to cross different parts of the media world, done the work so that I’m qualified to be in each one. I never considered my color the issue. I considered my qualifications the issue.”

Areva Martin: “Well David, you know that’s a whole other long conversation about white privilege and things that you have the privilege of doing that people of color don’t have the privilege of.”

David Webb: “How do I have the privilege of white privilege?”

Areva Martin: “David, by virtue of being a white male, you have white privilege, which is a whole long conversation I don’t have time to get into.”

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/01/15/cnn-analyst-called-out-fox-news-contributor-his-white-privilege-hes-black/?utm_term=.0dc9c7087805

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnn-legal-analyst-areva-martin-accuses-david-webb-of-white-privilege-before-learning-hes-black

https://www.theblaze.com/news/cnn-analysts-white-privilege-black-conservative

https://freebeacon.com/politics/cnn-analyst-accuses-fox-news-contributor-of-benefiting-from-white-privilege-hes-black/

https://ijr.com/david-webb-blasts-cnn-analyst-accusing-him-of-white-privilege/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSHyAwErdFM

Thaddeus Bradshaw (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Big fucking deal. Are there any changes you would like to make to the article? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't like your use of profanity. Anyway, to answer your question - I think this info should be included in the White privilege article. A CNN legal expert is about as reliable a source as we could hope for. The fact that black people can benefit from while privilege would make this article a lot more interesting. Thaddeus Bradshaw (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The header of this section is misleading and incorrect. This should obviously not be included in the article, its just a silly mistake someone made that will soon be forgotten. You wrote:
 * "The fact that black people can benefit from while privilege would make this article a lot more interesting."
 * According to the Washington Post article linked above "Martin thought she was talking to a white man". So when Martin said that she did not say that "black people can benefit from while privilege". Libby Kane (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of playing, "Which shell is the pea under" when you can easily see that the player has just palmed the pea. It is naked, transparent BS. Carptrash (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * wAS THIS NOT FACE TO FACE?Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Clarifying that the reason the original post was struck through is that they were a sockpuppet evading a block. Doug Weller  talk 17:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2019 adding a citation
These and other uses grew out of the era of legal discrimination against Black Americans, and reflected the idea that white status could continue despite formal equality. Dhumanists1 (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"White privilege" - weasel words in the definition from the article lead and disinformation by omission.
Quote: White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that in some countries benefits white people over non-white people, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people.

The current definition, for "white privilege", in the article lead seems to rely heavily on weasel words and disinformation by omission.

→ "White privilege" is not a rigorously proven "societal privilege" but a notion/concept from Sociology/Social-sciences (for the most part). It is a broadly defined concept backed mostly by narratives, anecdotes, partisan research and storytelling and not by Science (eg: there are ZERO causal studies supporting it). Wikipedia should make the sources for the definitions for this term very clear and unambiguous (maybe even provide links to RS for this paragraph), instead of opting to phrase the definition using the rhetorical trick of disinformation by omission.

→ "Academic perspectives" = weasel words for "Academic theories and opinions" that happen to be specific to a few disciplines (outside the established Sciences/STEM areas). In this context the qualifier is completely redundant. 64.125.109.37 (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Problems
Look, this page needs a criticism section so that they don't end up in the lead paragraph. The criticisms are real, you may disagree with them but we need to objectively include the fact that they exist.

Additionally there are a number of problems with the article overall as it quickly looks at influences and cultural theory without having a clear definition to apply to these.

I think greater clarity in this article and less haste would be of great benefit.

Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * and to add/expand that this article uses multiple definitions of White Privilege thus including other topics for which there are already wiki pages for like white supremacy, institutional racism, and racism. I will try to edit this but I believe there are a lot of people behaving very defensively here. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find it hard to gain consensus for removing discussion of such closely related concepts out of this article. Especially on the weak grounds that other articles exist. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * How is that weak grounds Simonm223? If we are to define White Privilege it is essential to not confuse it - as you have done - with other concepts. Further your justification for reverting my edit is it is 'a nice lead in to' a quote by DuBOis.  The quote remained as it is relevant to a notion of 'proto-White privilege', the sentance/reversion in question changes the scope of the conversion completely and isn't even from DuBois himself.  Again, I maintain that your reversion is hasty and counterproductive.  Tying into exactly what I wrote above.  Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If you really want greater clarity in this article and less haste then perhaps you should suggest your changes here first. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Bite Ok, I've never encountered a wiki page in which the Talk page was used in a timely fashion, but of course I'm here to learn. I can propose specific changes here instead of editing the article.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesperian Nguyen (talk • contribs) 23:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Returning to this... And considering edits will be reversed almost automatically... I can only think that a complete rewrite of this article is needed. The prevailing attitude seems to include everything - even though the main asset of the concept of White Privilege is that is describes the residual/invisible attitudes and barriers in societies that don't have overtly racist White Supremacist policies like Apartheid or Jim Crow laws any longer, but maintain a mono-racial status quo. Including everything and making emotionally and politically charged editing decisions clouds the importance of this term * in addition to * existing discourse on racism. I understand intentions are good, but due to the sticky and defensive nature of the concept it might be worth waiting this out until it isn't a buzzword. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's already been demonstrated that the local consensus is against WP:DYNAMITE here. Yesterday you asked me what I, as a socialist, think of the situation on the page and I'd say this - any single individual who believes that their own personal view of the article should supersede the consensus of the involved editors here should consider checking their ego, and maybe engaging in good-faith discussion of what they think should be removed or changed specifically, and be prepared to accept that the rest of the people here may disagree. Basically, take your ego out of the equation and consider the collective will here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I asked you Simonm223 what the socialist position is on White Privelege. The 'collective will' you speak of seems to be comprised of a group with a strong emotional and political agenda, amazing historical myopia, knee-jerk reactions, and frankly don't really represent the concept in any neutral or encyclopedic way, nor conform to 'best practice' research. Further, past decisions can always be revisited if new information and perspectives become available. I am addressing problems in this specific article to improve it, in an objective and bold way. My changes were minor and fair, I followed this format: act boldly but take it to talk if there is debate.
 * Simonm223 no need to resort to lazy armchair psychology simply because you don't agree with or understand me. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * please avoid violating WP:NPA - you asked my opinion, I suggested you should adhere to WP:CONSENSUS as the foundational policy of Wikipedia I'm sorry if you don't like that advice, but I'd suggest that my comments regarding setting aside ego are because when a single user shows up at an established page, declares everything is wrong, invokes WP:DYNAMITE and then disregards consensus, especially when said user goes from zero to incredibly active on the page overnight, the statement that they might want to consciously set aside their individual opinion and see what the consensus is, ie: setting aside ego, is the best advice I can offer. Now two more policies you might want to consider WP:STICK and WP:1AM because I have a feeling you're going to see those two a lot if you continue down this path.


 * Also, on a book-keeping note, please don't ping me multiple times for the same discussion. IF you've pinged me once please assume I will see it when I next log into Wikipedia. Multiple pings are... annoying. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be great if my suggestions for improving an encyclopedic entry could be taken and addressed at face value? I realise there are other people involved here, and as previously noted, am not used to editing a 'controversial' page, but seriously – aside from 'putting me in my place' in the somewhat arbitrary and definitely flawed system we have here on wiki – what is productive in the hyporbole of your conclusions and (not very self-reflexive) comments?  Seriously? Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Not proposing Dynamite. I said I think the article could benefit from a complete rewrite.  Simply because it is bogged down in opposing definitions of the concept. I seek clarity not destruction. I would imagine a lot of the research in the existing piece would remain the same.  Sorry for using an editing term and not a wiki one. A good example of why a rewrite could help is that as the article stands there are inconsistencies and as is the page adds confusion to understanding the concept and what it is related to.  That would be helpful to wiki.  Let's not waste each others time here. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Simonm223 Maybe you could just chill with the exaggerated accusations and just ask me what I mean if you don't get it. Yes, wiki admins are great at round-about rationalising, blockading, and wiki reference crutches, but I'm not vandalising the page. Why do you oppose suggested changes to the article? Do you think it is good as is? Or do you think it can be improved? I do. All I've gotten out of the last coupe days on this talk page is that there is a preference for a more bureaucratic process (functioning or not) to make edits. I can only assume the page has been vandalised or hijacked in the past, so I'm saying "I get it".  But space and time needs to be permitted for improvements.  Kind regards Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * who are you referring to as "wiki Admins"? I'm an Admin, who else is? (And no big deal, but we don't use the term "Wiki" to refer to Wikipedia.) Doug Weller  talk 19:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how comments on my 'behavioral' issues and incomplete knowledge of the jargon on wikipedia is productive to improving the article. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the bit about "wiki" was just an aside, in no way a criticism and I agree was not about the article. However, I'm still not clear what you mean by saying "admins", are you now retracting that? I certainly didn't comment on you "behavioral" issues. I presume you're referring to other editors. I'll post to your talk page. Doug Weller  talk 11:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They probably mistook me for an admin. It happens sometimes because I'm a currently-active long-term editor who knows enough wiki policies to be active on divisive talk pages. For the sake of clarity, I am not, have never been and have no interest in being an admin although I have a lot of respect for those who wield the mop and am friends with a few. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section
Please note that it is often a bad practice to move content to a seperate criticism section (e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#%22Criticism%22_section). I worry that the motivation here might have been in part to bury the critiques rather than have them integrated in more prominently.-Pengortm (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Update--oops, seeing that this was discussed a bit above here as well. Nonetheless, my concern stands.-Pengortm (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pengortm Hi, well looking through the page and recent edits and understanding the topic in the US at present... 1) Criticisms don't belong in the opening paragraph (in the same way 'controversy' doesn't belong in someone's personal page unless that is all they are known for). Yet, 2) there needs to be a place where criticisms can be noted. If you feel like it needs to be higher on the page then that is a different subject, but I am trying to follow normal pagination here on wiki. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I feel like – just as this page no doubt had little activity 7 years ago – the contents of this page are excessive and off topic due to the words popularity at the moment. In other words, the article could use heavy editing to become a more concise encyclopedic entry. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Saying this was discussed "a bit" is a colossal understatement. Specifically, see Talk:White privilege/Archive 11. Consensus was against such a section, and using a synonym for "criticism" doesn't adequately address the underlying problem with this approach. The article should, as you say, summarize the academic consensus of a topic spanning a long-view. WP:CSECTIONs are seldom neutral by their very nature, and especially not for a heavily politicized term such as this one. Grayfell (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Grayfell Seems to me the normal rules of Wikipedia don't apply to the contributors to this article. There is no reason why we need to have so many inconsistencies here including the my use of the word 'concept' or not using the hardly known term 'white-skin privilege' in the introductory paragraph... yet you advocate for including criticism in the Lead?! Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:CONSENSUS is the normal rule of Wikipedia. I don't really understand what you're proposing, but yet another CSECTION won't work without consensus. I've already discussed this countless times spanning years, and so have many, many other people. Take a look at the talk page's 13 archive pages where I, and editors more patient and eloquent than I, have discussed this to death already. With that in mind, what, exactly, are you suggesting? Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Grayfell The fact that this 'concept' has been denied by some groups and raises ire with others is worth noting in the article, but in no way should it cloud the encyclopedic definition of it. Thus the criticisms should be noted in their own section and not in the articles lead paragraph – as it was reverted today for some reason. There is no denying the concept exists.  And denying that criticisms of the concept exist is... let's just say partisan.  Because criticisms exist, a section that concisely acknowledges this should as well. This is not the place to battle over politics by denying others opinions, but to reflect with accuracy our world. Finally, the nature of this concept as a concept about race in the US (cause that's basically the only place it is fully applicable) is the cause of vandalism, not the acknowledgement that some people find it contentious or inaccurate. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Grayfell The archived consensus page is for a 'critique' section and is a disaster with many emotional and highly subjective replies which really have no place here. Don't think that can be seen as valid tbh. Looking at wiki overall I stand by the obvious need to acknowledge the critics in a section of their own simply because they do in fact exist and do not stand as part of the central definition of the concept of White Privilege.  The current situation in fact makes the criticism more central to the concept's meaning. This is a total no-brainer.  Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please stop pinging me for every comment. Do not ping me unless it's urgent or if it's for something you think I wouldn't notice, and do not ping me until you are done commenting so that I have a change to respond, otherwise you are actively inviting edit conflicts.
 * The article does absolutely need work in a lot of areas, but there are several problems with your positions and your statements:
 * The lede summarizes the body, so a section in the body of the article would support this being mentioned in the lede. You are suggesting that it should be in the body instead of being in the lede, but this is against the WP:MOS. A common starting-point for composing a lede is to mention every subsection of an article. If your proposal is to remove some of this content to integrate it into the rest of the article and then summarize it briefly in the lede, great! I support that, but a CSECTION isn't the way to do this. This is per the many, many reasons tediously explained in the archives.
 * We are not particularly concerned with the raw quantity of criticisms, which should be obvious. Many of the criticisms which people have tried to include, even very recently, have been gossip columns or political hot-air, or passing mentions taken out of context. We're not a platform for WP:GOSSIP, and we're also not a platform for WP:FRINGE ideas. We summarize according to WP:DUE, so if reliable, independent sources explain these criticisms, let's go from there. If they don't, their mere existence doesn't warrant an entire section.
 * This is definitely not exclusively about race in the US. The article is lopsided, but it does also include sections on South Africa and Australia. There is also great potential for expansion of other areas, and also for historical information, such as Slavery in Brazil etc. This would depend on sources, but the current article already discusses the global picture.
 * Your opinion on the RFC doesn't really change much. I have no idea why you are suggesting that being "emotional" invalidates a claim, but it is entirely possible for a position to be both emotional and correct. If you want to change consensus, dismissing arguments you don't agree with as subjective will not be persuasive, since we all think we are being reasonable and rational, and nobody is expected to robotically suppress their emotions. Grayfell (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * [User:Simonm223|Simonm223] You list yourself as a socialist. I'd be interested in a summary of socialist positions. Related to improving the article with new sections. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Grayfell (talk Ok, this will be the last time I mention (ping) you. "If your proposal is to remove some of this content to integrate it into the rest of the article and then summarize it briefly in the lede, great! I support that" Yes exactly. If not in a section, where would suggest I place the criticism?  Also and importantly, a section for criticism gives deterrents a place, which you acknowledge exists in the real world, 'contained' in the article. Completely disagree about anything justifying the super unprofessional comments on here, but yeah.  As an aside, I apologize for not knowing the landscape in a more contentious article.  I'm here because I want to improve it. But if I'm being shot down before I get off the ground, that's not giving me a fair chance is it? Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This idea of "containment" is interesting, but I don't see it as neutral. All complex concepts are going to have nuanced and inconsistent definitions on the deeper level, right? There is very little worth talking about that isn't, in some way, controversial. I'm sorry, I know that's pretentious, but please just stick with me for a second... If we accept this starting position, we have to ask ourselves, why are we taking some of these positions and placing them in their own section? Everything in the article is context for this broad and complicated topic. So what, exactly, is the common thread of these "critiques"/"criticisms"/"contrasting concepts"/etc.? It turns out that there really isn't much of a common thread at all. Some criticize the way the concept is applied in schools, or the way it's over-used by social media, or the modern relevancy of the term compared to its historical significance, or its overlap with racism, and a very few criticize its very existence. If the only thing these have in common is that they are judged by some editors as critical, grouping them together is a form of editorializing.
 * Instead, the ideal approach is to integrate this content into the rest of the article where it can be used to provide context about the concept, instead of context-free ideas about the people who dispute it. The purpose of the article is to explain the concept, so if we can use these perspective for that goal, that's a good thing. If we instead just cram them in to mollify drive-by IPs and vandels, that's a failure on several levels. Grayfell (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So essentially integrate without acknowledgement some types of criticism into all parts of the article? I think what I'm talking about is the camps that outright reject White Privilege. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Again seems way off from other well organized wiki articles. And my starting point for wanting to improve this article is that it is badly organized ye, but very editorialized (barricaded) already and way too long! Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We "acknowledged" criticism in proportion to due weight, and we evaluate all sources in context. The camps which outright reject white privilege are already disproportionately over-represented. Almost every reputable source accept that white privilege exists in some contexts, such as legal, social, political, or historical (such as the one-drop rule or Apartheid). Some consider it redundant with other, overlapping concepts, and some consider it poorly-defined, but these aren't even remotely comparable to the fringe perspective that white privilege doesn't exist at all. Grayfell (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "The camps which outright reject white privilege are already disproportionately over-represented." Well then edit them.
 * "Some consider it redundant with other, overlapping concepts, and some consider it poorly-defined" I would be in this area and find the article on here representative of a confused or even maybe compromised understanding of the concept.
 * You are arguing for zero changes to this page? What are you arguing for? The fact that people have come to some sort of group decision that places criticism of the concept in the lead but oppose it elsewhere is something I don't need to have rationalized any further. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is substantial political controversy around the concept of white privilege, including substantial criticism, and I think this should be neutrally included in the article in one way or another. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the controversy, and what reliable sources about this political controversy are you suggesting? As I've said many times before, the sources I have seen mostly accept that white privilege exists, and the controversies are how it's explained, or how it's applied. Even some of these have been so vague as to be unworkable. If all we're saying is that "Jordan Peterson acknowledges that it exists and disputes its usefulness in many situations" than we're not really saying anything at all. If the purpose of the article is to explain the concept to readers, we need to be able to explain what the controversy is without subtly validating the fringe idea that "white privilege is a myth". Vagueness is not appropriate here, so sources about this controversy need to be the starting point. Editor-selected examples of political punditry are not going to cut it. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * What I don't understand is why an existing reference can be used to support the definition of White Privilege, but is quickly dismissed as "...what some crank at the Federalist thinks?" when repurposed. It's from the same article (https://www.weeklystandard.com/david-marcus/a-conservative-defense-of-privilege-theory).
 * The controversy would need to be spelled out, this is true. But even the aforementioed reference falls into the criticism category. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, you don't understand it. So do you want to understand it? All sources are judged in context. Who is David Marcus? What are his qualifications and why is his opinion so significant that it belongs in the lede? These are questions readers would reasonably want an answer to, but which the article (and the source) failed to address. The source is currently used as one of several for the sentence As such, most definitions and discussions of the concept use as a starting point McIntosh's metaphor... which comes later in the body of the article. This is a non-controversial point which is not an opinion, nor is it presented as one. I don't think this usage is ideal, but it's very obviously a different context than just presenting his opinion as vitally significant. Even the concept's critics recognize the importance of Peggy McIntosh's writing. This is what that source is currently supporting.
 * Further, the quote in the lede was, arguably, a selective interpretation of the source, which would make this cherry-picking. Marcus (whoever he is) clearly accepts that the "theory" is valid: It absolutely describes an actual phenomenon. Her most basic examples ring true. White people do see themselves represented more often in our culture and history, and rarely are the only person who looks the way they do in rooms where power exists. He than uses this as a springboard to make a number of vaguely supported points which may or may not be valid, but are clearly his opinion. There's nothing wrong with this, and he's obviously free to state his position however he wishes, but there is something wrong with this article presenting the opinion of a non-notable writer who has not been identified as an expert as vitally significant. Any attempt to summarize this position would need attribution, but just as significantly, would also need a reason. There is no lack of political punditry on "privilege theory", so why is this particular essay important enough to summarize here? Grayfell (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that, in terms of summarizing conservative backlash in the lead, it is sufficient to use Weinburg's summary of it, since that's a WP:SECONDARY source - quoting individual conservative critics in the lead is going into too much detail, especially given how bloated it is already. We could possibly have a "backlash" subsection in the US section to summarize the backlash Weinburg talks about (we would have to find more secondary sources covering it), but I think it's important to avoid having it become a dumping ground for op-eds and pop-culture books that people use to argue over the subject by proxy. The backlash itself is deserving of some coverage, but most of the op-eds and the like that it produced are probably aren't, individually - we should rely on secondary sources to summarize them instead.  I also think it's extremely important to draw a distinction between the sorts of post-2014 conservative critics Weinburg mentions and more academic commentators who might describe limitations of the concept or question its applicability but who, generally, are coming from a completely different angle and often don't disagree with the idea that it's useful in the right context.  --Aquillion (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I definitely strongly oppose the creation of a criticism section, but I think it's fair to say that the giant, bloated paragraph at the end of the lead needs to be dissected and most of its content moved elsewhere (some things could be dropped entirely, but most is worth mentioning.) Some could be moved into appropriate sections.  But perhaps a limitations section would be more appropriate - many of the things mentioned in the paragraph in question aren't overt criticisms and aren't coming from people who oppose the concept of white privilege as a whole; instead, they're talking about limitations to the concept's applicability or to how it's commonly perceived.  In any case, I have serious doubts about the way that the current paragraph lumps most of the people it mentions together into a nebulous "they" and treats it as though they all share the same perspective, when that's clearly not the case.  We could also perhaps create some sort of backlash subsection in the US section to describe the sort of backlash against the concept that Weinburg describes.  But the article shouldn't become a place to debate the concept by proxy; describing the existence of a backlash against the concept of white privilege is fair, including citing examples of that backlash, but devoting a section to users piecing together their own arguments against it out of disparate articles and op-eds isn't appropriate (and is often a problem with criticism sections.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Dearest Grayfell et al let us try to keep the talk page comradely please. Thanks for the detailed explanation, however the remaining issue is a lack of neutrality exemplified by comments like "...what some crank at the Federalist thinks?", yet clearly what he thinks warranted a reference a few paragraphs down. When the article and citations are read completely it is clear his criticism is only in the application of 'solutions' to White Privilege.
 * In any case, I appreciate all the responses here in the last day. I am going to refrain from commenting until I can reframe my criticisms of the piece in a more concrete way, as my 'starts' are derailing the big picture issue here – which I've only alluded too. Closing: What are peoples thoughts about the article on Social_privilege? It presents both 'challenges' and 'criticism' sections and is able to do so with fewer academic sources, or rather, fewer citations full stop, and generally with greater neutrality and concision.  Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Hesperian Nguyen. This page needs a criticism section or it needs to weave the critiques into the article. Right now there is neither.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Has it been six months already? Nice to see you, Keith. See you again in the autumn. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add my voice to the many users requesting a criticism section. This is by no means a one sided issue. There are many voices in the western world critical of the concept of white privilege - the inability to quantify it, inability of the people to whom it is ascribed to escape it and the inability of that race to in fact ever recover from the accusation. It implies a panracial inherency which is the dictionary definition of racial stereotype, and the encouragement of protesters like Black Lives Matter to limit freedoms of white people or to encourage reparation for perceived injustice as a result is textbook racism. This article is not correct without that side of the story.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/calvin-white-concept-of-white-privilege-another-form-of-racism https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/opinion/article219554050.html https://www.wthrockmorton.com/2018/08/27/the-social-justice-debate-jordan-peterson-on-white-privilege/

Here's three to start with. Cummin14 (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cummin14 and others who think a criticism sections is warranted. "White privilege" is not an established Scientific fact or well-defined phenomena in the physical world, but a broadly and non-rigorously defined sociological, political and philosophical term. Just like so many other similar concepts in sociology, philosophy or political-thought have their dedicated criticism sections, it only sounds fair and balanced for this page to have one as well. There's plenty multi-disciplinary academic criticism to be found, some even in the same academic/philosophical spheres where the concept has originated. Some examples:
 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1477878508095586?journalCode=treb
 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0191453705055488

64.125.109.37 (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the need for a criticism section. The article is not designed to efficiently incorporate the main points of critique into the text, nor does it do so. Keith Johnston (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Images
None of the images illustrate White Privilege but rather racism. If we cannot have basic agreement on what the concept of White Privilege adds to existing discourse about racism, white supremacy, anti-racism, institutional racism, etc then we can not extrapolate an article and include images and other proofs. And that is exactly what has happened with this article – a house built on no foundation at all. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Each of these three images is supported by surrounding context. One is an image of a legal document of white privilege, which is a direct illustration of the concept at its most basic. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I said it in the first sentence!


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Registration_Act,_1950 Shows that this is part of the racist regime of Apartheid's racial categorization project. A smaller part of a bigger legal system built on racism. This isn't a good illustration of White Privilege, or really, one at all. I don't know what the best image to illustrate White Privilege in South Africa today is, but maybe you do or someone form there does? Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It is relevant to both white privilege and racism. These two concepts overlap, and simply put, white privilege is a subset of racism, so anything which covers the former will also apply to the latter. There is no reason to confine this to "today" since this article is not limited to the modern concept. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll go back to my point about definition of the concept. The photo illustrates an example of race categorization, nothing more. Find a photo of white people living freely in contrast to blacks or 'coloureds' (as is the correct term in SA) not, then you have an illustration of the concept.  Overlapping and being a subset are pretty different tbh. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The point of today is an important contextual one especially in SA. The past was one of a racist legal system. Today, and after reconciliation, there is without a doubt White Privilege. Talking about today allows the specificities of Privilege vs Apartheid to be laid bare. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "Race categorization" in a country which provided explicit legal and social privileges for those whom it chose to categorize as white? That's obviously relevant to white privilege, in addition to all the other problems inherent in treating race as discretely categorizable. Today is important, but so is history. There is no valid reason to present this as either/or regarding images. It seems like your suggesting that privilege replaced Apartheid, but that is WP:OR. Find a source which makes this point and go from there. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's only relevant to in a round about way but not an illustration of it. Obviously it is directly related to Apartheid and White Supremacy. But the specific political system and the concepts are not interchangeable despite your arguments. You seem to be of the 'add everything that is related' camp and I am clearly advocating for a more concise article that focuses on what What Privilege is and what it adds to knowledge about race issues, not what it is related too. Regarding todays SA, this is also applicable, as a system of White Supremacy has been dismantled yet racial privilege still exists (at least from what I briefly witnessed) thus providing an example of the differences between the two. But that might not make sense to you since you hold a different definition of the 'concept' of White Privilege. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Simonm223 Here's a great example ^^^ of your collective will simply being incorrect. What I see is a strong motivation to increase the volume and weight of this article but doing so through sloppy or disingenuous methods. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The graph included (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_gender_pay_gap,_by_sex,_race-ethnicity-2009.png) also does not illustrate the principles outlines in the accompanying paragraph. Yet, Asians – which includes many ethnicities and multiple races – appear to have the highest privilege in the use of this graph in this article. A more specific graph – perhaps broken into white and non-white – showing wage gaps of similarly trained and qualified groups of different races would be more appropriate. Further the variable of gender further complicates its use here. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * IMO, a photo showing e.g. a nicer "whites only" water fountain and a lower-quality "colored" water fountain would more clearly illustrate white privilege than a paper simply certifying whiteness, but I can see how the certification-paper is relevant to the topic—we could add more relevant images without needing to drop the (remarkably few) images that are already present. -sche (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

white or white-skinned people
The use of white or white-skinned people is completely redundant. You cannot be white-skinned without being white. I can only think that changing this to 'light-skinned' can expand and clarify the concept – as it then applies to those that 'pass' in a society without having the genetic claim to being the majority or 'norm'.Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Further who uses "white skin privilege"? Is this common enough to be noted in the opening line? Or is this a simple redirect? It adds nothing to the understanding of the concept. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * White skin privilege redirects here. It is a term used in some academic contexts, and per MOS:BOLD it should be included in the lede. This is bog-standard. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you mean MOS:BOLD#OTHER ? Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, under "Article title terms": This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections... Grayfell (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Clearly an editorial choice as you understand it isn't common. Reads awkwardly Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal per 's explanation. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * My subsection here refers primarily to this "...how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people." Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The specific edit request was to remove "white skin privilege" from the lede. I oppose that on the grounds specified by Grayfell. For the rest see WP:NOTAFORUM Simonm223 (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The specific edit was proposed by me and relates to: "...how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people." or what I just wrote^^^. It is in fact an important issue to note and hopefully expand in the article. That is: about passing.  The lede just reads oddly to me and again is not what is primarily pointed here. Thanks for the research below to substantiate it.Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Eh. In Google Books' Ngram Viewer, "white privilege" is about 15x more common then "white skin privilege". And whereas raw Google hits are unreliable and meaningless, Google Scholar results estimates are generally more accurate, and find ~43,800 scholarly papers mentioning "white privilege", about 23x more than the ~1,900 mentioning "white skin privilege". So, "white skin privilege" is not that common, but it's not rare. I don't think it has to be in the lead, but if some people want it there, I don't see any problem with it. -sche (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Results of Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, study of white privilege
A scientific study on white privilege was published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in April

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-22926-001

These are the conclusions:

White privilege lessons are sometimes used to increase awareness of racism. However, little research has investigated the consequences of these lessons. Across 2 studies (N = 1,189), we hypothesized that White privilege lessons may both highlight structural privilege based on race, and simultaneously decrease sympathy for other challenges some White people endure (e.g., poverty)—especially among social liberals who may be particularly receptive to structural explanations of inequality. Indeed, both studies revealed that while social liberals were overall more sympathetic to poor people than social conservatives, reading about White privilege decreased their sympathy for a poor White (vs. Black) person. Moreover, these shifts in sympathy were associated with greater punishment/blame and fewer external attributions for a poor White person’s plight. We conclude that, among social liberals, White privilege lessons may increase beliefs that poor White people have failed to take advantage of their racial privilege—leading to negative social evaluations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)

These conclusions represent RS and should be incorporated into this page. Keith Johnston (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read the study, or just the abstract you copy/pasted here? Normally I would ask what, precisely, Wikipedia should say about this obscure WP:PRIMARY study, and how it would benefit readers, but as you have become a WP:SPA for this single issue, you have already made your perspective crystal clear. Instead of more of the same WP:CIVILPOV waffle, please just link to one single WP:SECONDARY source which mentions this study. That would help us to evaluate the significance of this study.
 * I would also remind you that WP:CANVASSING other sympathetic editors is frowned upon, since this has been a problem in the past. Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Here are links to the secondary sources.

https://reason.com/2019/05/29/white-privilege-study-sympathetic-black-people/

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/what_happens_when_you_educate_liberals_about_white_privilege

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/neazxq/the-disturbing-thing-i-learned-studying-white-privilege-and-liberals Keith Johnston (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The Vice article is by one of the study's authors, so it is not secondary. Again, have you actually read the study, or just the abstract? Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Stick to the point, which is to establish the veracity of RS and properly summarise it.

The https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/what_happens_when_you_educate_liberals_about_white_privilege is RS. The magazine is "Based at the University of California, Berkeley, one of the world’s leading institutions of research and higher education, the GGSC is unique in its commitment to both science and practice".

I would summarise as follows:

"Some evidence suggests in practice the idea of white privilege can reduce empathy for white people who are struggling with poverty. A paper, published by the Journal of Experimental Psychology and reported in Science Magazine Greater Good, found that social liberals—people who have socially liberal views on the major political issues—are actually less likely to empathize with a poor white person’s plight after being given a reading on white privilege."

Keith Johnston (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The point? In order to properly summarize a source, someone has to actually read it. That is the point. I asked for secondary sources and you present a primary source, which suggests to me that you don't understand why this is important. If you don't understand why this important, you will not be able to properly summarize these sources. Saying that a source "is RS" in the citation itself is extraordinarily confusing to readers, also.


 * You placement of this paragraph in the 'white fragility' section is confusing as well. Do you understand what the term 'white fragility' means?


 * The Greater Good story provides some interesting background to this study, also. The article mentions that the researcher's previous work includes this article and this one. All of these directly support the concept of white privilege. None of these are critical of the concept of white privilege, only how it might be taught. By emphasizing this one study and ignoring others, you are cherry-picking to support a specific narrative.


 * That said, I added info on this study to the #Framing racial inequality section. I have attempted to summarize the conclusion provided by one of the study's leads, for context. Grayfell (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Grayfell (talk). Your summary is unpersuasive. The importance of the study is not that it demonstrates the "importance of nuance" as you put it. Rather the findings: "suggests that lessons about white privilege could persuade social liberals to place greater personal blame on poor white people for their social circumstances, out of the belief that their “privilege” outweighs other social factors that could have brought them to their station in life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 12:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The concept of privilege: a critical appraisal
There is an interesting piece of critique of white privilege reported in NotProfit Quarterly (see https://nonprofitquarterly.org/putting-privilege-in-perspective/) based on the article by Professor Michael J. Monahana of the Universoty of Memphis: The concept of privilege: a critical appraisal (see https://philarchive.org/archive/MONTCO-21v1).

Here Monahan concludes: “the misleading and morally dubious aspects of privilege…ultimately do more harm to a genuine understanding of oppression than good.” Rather than using the concept of privilege for social justice Monahan proposes, “We would be better served by beginning with a more sophisticated understanding of racist oppression as systemic, and of individual agents as constitutively implicated in that system.”

I think it would be useful to incorporate this critique into this article. Keith Johnston (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, the source is valid, it's probably WP:DUE - I recommend proposing a draft here first as the article can be ... fraught... and we can work about how best to include it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * How about this:


 * Michael J. Monahana argues the rhetoric of privilege "obscures as much as it illuminates" and that “We would be better served by beginning with a more sophisticated understanding of racist oppression as systemic, and of individual agents as constitutively implicated in that system."

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/putting-privilege-in-perspective and https://philarchive.org/archive/MONTCO-21v1


 * Also need help identifying where to put this in the article.Keith Johnston (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

POV banner
you inserted the POV banner to the article but did not raise any concerns at talk. Would you care to explain what issue you have with the POV of this article? Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article should include some criticisms of the concept of white privilege to be considered truly neutral.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * I mean it actually does. See for example this recent inclusion, which was discussed here. . So I'm going to go ahead and remove the banner thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean that we need to include some authors who don't believe that white privilege exists.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Per your recent edit summary I'd suggest you review WP:PROFRINGE and if you can find a source that isn't WP:FRINGE that makes that unlikely assertion, we can discuss it here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ben Shapiro isn't fringe, is he?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Um... yes he is. And his uninformed opinion is WP:UNDUE in an article on a sociological concept regardless. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A significant note: a BA in political science does not give one any due weight in an article on sociology and that's the best qualification this particular racist activist can muster. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is Jordan Peterson fringe? What would classify a scholar as not-fringe?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Good god yes. I think you might be looking for Conservapedia. And you can start by looking for somebody who actually studied sociology - as this is a sociological concept. Peterson is a clinical psychologist and an amateur philosopher. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair a line or two about this might be OK. Fringe does not require us to ignore fringe views, just not to give them undue prominence. I think a line like "And according to (the widely discredited (source)) Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson white privilege is a myth".Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither Shapiro nor Peterson are WP:DUE any significance here; they are uneducated in the subject matter, unaffected by it and directly profit from their contrarian hot-takes. This might be due on the articles about both of these notable persons. But it's not due here. Because they are irrelevant to the discourse surrounding the term. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Due talks about significant viewpoints not qualified ones.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Jason Manning and Bradley Campbell say that white privilege is a hoax in The Rise of Victimhood Culture. They are sociologists.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * I am unfamiliar with Manning and Campbell. Is any of their work available online? Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The book I mentioned can be accessed via Google Books.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * I've done some reading, and their association with the Pure Sociology guy makes me a little skeptical, and I am also skeptical of anybody who gets glowing praise from the leading phrenology blog of the English speaking world however they may at the very least be due mention. How would you include their commentary on their novel "Victimhood Culture" concept? Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * After further review of Manning and Campbell, while I may disagree with their theoretical approach, they don't appear to be fringe figures and are probably due mention. So the question becomes how and where would you prefer to mention them. Please propose a draft. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I should note that I tracked down an excerpt of the monograph you mentioned and they don't seem to dispute that white privilege exists; rather they argue that the citation of that is part of the movement toward a novel moral paradigm. Again, this may be due inclusion here; having an understanding of precisely what you are planning on citing from the book and where might help with that. But if you want to cite them for the claim that any mainstream sociologists disbelieve white privilege exists, I'm afraid that may fail verification. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the appropriate way to look at this is to look for secondary sources rather than the primary ones being bandied about. The primary sources used in the article right now are used because they are cited extensively by secondary sources. The works by Shapiro, Peterson, and Manning & Campbell don't seem to have much independent notice, if I'm not mistaken. Can someone point to relevant experts who have written secondary sources about these people and their publications in the context of the subject of this article? jps (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Do people dunking on Shapiro on Twitter for being a twit count as secondary sources? Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Taking the jesting question seriously, there might well be circumstances where tweets by subject-area experts dunking on Shapiro would be acceptable per WP:SPS. I don't have much experience with Twitter myself, but my impression is that individual tweets can be assembled into long threads that end up being basically blog posts in a mildly inconvenient form. Then the question becomes not what website the dunk happens to be published on, but how scholarly the dunk itself is. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally not. There's a bit of a running joke in leftist twitter of making memes insulting Shapiro's self-certainty of genius (as he so often says shockingly dumb things). They would not be considered reliable sources. And generally most sources outside of the US conservative echo chamber are content to completely ignore Shapiro as being inconsequential. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If some serious source had noticed/participated in/analyzed this meme-making, we could write about it somewhere in Wikipedia, but the relevance to this page seems dubious. For a source to be relevant to this page, the source would have to be writing about white privilege and mention Shapiro as either an object lesson or someone worthy of addressing. As far as I can tell, there is nothing going there. jps (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * restricting critique (or indeed support) of white privilege to sociologists is untenable as this would exclude much of the critique and would give undue weight to the proponents of a sociological theory.  We must judge each source on its merits.  Furthermore the article is littered with sources offering support for white privilege which are not from sociologists, so in practice I am concerned that this claim is being used as a tactic to limit critique.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The limitation is on the basis of independent notice by reliable sources, not on the basis of whether the author of the source is a sociologist. Critique (and support) should only be included when it has been noticed by independent sources. jps (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * agreed. Follow the trail and you will see I am responding to Simonm223 (talk) erroneous assertions limiting reliable sources.Keith Johnston (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I look above and I see links for your independent notice to such dubious outfits as reason.com -- not exactly known for legitimate critique of this kind of concept. jps (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My argument was that the opinion of professional trolls and amateur philosophers was not WP:DUE here and that Peterson and Shapiro have WP:FRINGE views on this sociological concept which are exacerbated by their having no expertise in this field of the social sciences. Simonm223 (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Our job is to find relevant reliable sources. Your opinion on Peterson is not WP:DUE, only reliable sources opinion is. If you can find reliable sources which question their validity then we can debate them. In any event such a debate needs to be rooted in a specific request for a change in the article and general discussions serve little value.  Getting back to the point: I agree this article should have a POV banner because it should, but does not yet, include relevant criticisms of the concept of white privilege to be considered truly neutral.Keith Johnston (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is that Peterson is not a relevant reliable source. His opinions on various subjects may be WP:DUE on his own page, but absent secondary sources indicating his opinions are of lasting significance to this topic, they're not relevant here. Furthermore, Peterson should be treated in accordance with WP:FRINGE guidelines with regard to how we address his opinion of the subject. IE: If his view is found to be notable, it has to be contextualized that it is opposed to the mainstream academic perception. Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The source you are proposing to include is essentially a study about how some (white) people react to being taught about white privilege in a (semi-)controlled social/political psychology experiment. The relevance of this to the concept itself is not exactly clear from any source I've seen. To draw an analogy, I have seen many studies which describe the way teaching climate change in various fashions has affected people of various political persuasions. You won't find mention of these on the climate change article because it is a separate topic from actually explaining the concept itself. If there were some sources which somehow said that this study was relevant to defining the concept of white privilege or that it was relevant to certain white privilege scholarship, this would be a different story. jps (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What Simonm223 and jps said. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources you are referring to have been added to this section in error. They belong to the section above. To be constructive are you proposing the creation of a separate section or page covering 'white privilege in practice"?  I might be tempted to support such. After all there is a significant difference in 'marxism' to that of 'marxism in practice', albeit given many still make the argument that the theory is the source of the practical problems its not always obvious how to separate out the two. What I would not support is removing this reference and not creating a separate page or section, as this would further reduce the neutrality of this already woefully biased page. If you wish to continue this discussion this might best be done on a separate talk page section to avoid confusion. Keith Johnston (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm proposing nothing here. It was you who asked me to refer to the above conversation, and I'm giving my opinion. Your claim that this page is biased because it doesn't include sources which do not speak to (nor are referred in) the copious scholarship surrounding this topic. Those sources might be useful for some other context (an article on the author, for example), but excising such sources per WP:WEIGHT, WP:PSTS, or WP:FRINGE does not violate WP:NPOV. jps (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Furthermore, it's worth noting that the only actual reference provided is a WP:PRIMARY source that did not support the assertion made by the editor who originally proposed the POV tag (that white privilege does not exist) as that source situated white privilege as being a locus of the emergence of a novel moral paradigm ("Victimhood Morality") and critiqued white privilege as overly broad as those researchers were operating from a theoretical basis that all privilege is situational. If their work has been addressed in reliable secondary sources (which my reading yesterday suggested it might be - there's plenty of commentary in well-known non-reliable sources but I didn't go through anywhere near all the reviews and such), it may in fact be due here, as I said yesterday.


 * Beyond that one source, no other sources have been brought forward. Shapiro (a conservative political activist) and Peterson (a somewhat notorious clinical psychiatrist and motivational speaker) were brought up, and I mentioned that their positions on this social science concept would be considered WP:FRINGE but no actual references were provided, and when I asked the original placer of the tag what edits they might intend specifically, they said nothing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good points. While I agree with the POV tag I also agree it cannot be justified without reference to specific and numerous RS.  In my experience on this page it is a better use of time to take such RS and consider each individually and on its merits. Keith Johnston (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223 -- It is more misleading to fail to include such a banner than to include it. Ergo, on balance, this banner should be included. The substance or veracity of the countervailing views or opinions should be addressed as a separate question. The response to such a perceived lack of veracity of these opinions should NOT be to remove the banner, but rather to simply address the substance of the views themselves. This preserves the value that the banner brings while also contextualizing the countervailing opinions by raising awareness that such views are themselves disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenwiliams (talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Intellectuals and Race
This is interesting and worth including.

In his book, Intellectuals and Race, Thomas Sowell agues that privilege represents an effort by the intelligencia to "downplay or discredit achievement by verbally transforming it into privilege".

Full quote is:

"The very concept of achievement fades into the background or disappears completely in some of the verbal formulations of the intelligencia, where those who turn out to be more successful ex poste are depicted as being privileged ex ante. How far this vision can depart from reality was shown by a report titled 'Ethno-racial inequality in the City of Toronto', which said "The Japanese are among the most privileged group in the city because they were more successful economically than either other minorities there or the white majority'. What makes this conclusion grotesque is a documented history of Japanese discrimination in Canada where people of Japanese ancestry where interned during the second world war longer than Japanese Americans...Efforts of the intelligencia to downplay or discredit achievement by verbally transforming it into privilege are by no means by no means confined to the Japanese minority in Canada." Intellectuals and Race, pp52-53, Basic Books (12 Mar. 2013) 978-0465058723

See also Ethno-racial Inequality in the City of Toronto https://povertyandhumanrights.org/docs/ornstein_fullreport.pdf

Keith Johnston (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure that this is relevant here, but the passage seems reminiscent of model minority. jps (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful in the article on Thomas Sowell himself, which says very little about that particular book, but Sowell seems better known for other things, and I can't find much evidence that this specific argument, or the book that contains it, got real traction among scholars. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keith Johnston the Thomas Sowell information would be an excellent addition here -i.e.: facts backed by real data. The article on "white privilege" contains plenty of entries from non-scholars/bloggers currently. For example: check Gina Crosley-Corcoran's opinion for the Huffington Post. There's no valid reason to not including such data backed examples.. Here's an article presenting the ideas from the book in a reliable source. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to call into question that site's status as a "reliable source." &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you going to call into question the reliability of opinions from the Huffington Post, too? Because those are used as sources for the article. Daily Beast seems to have quite a history of controversies themselves and even the New York Times once brought us stories about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, if you want to argue that Daily Beast, NYT and HuffPo are not reliable sources, have at it. But there's a vast difference between news media making mistakes, and a company deliberately spreading propaganda. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that the anecdotal accusation you throw around is anything but proper evidence against the reliability of Real Clear Politics and accusing them of 'deliberately spreading propaganda' is fringe at best. By comparison, the Daily Beast has been involved in multiple controversies and is a relatively young company. So is Huffington Post which is not labeled as a generally reliable source by Wikipedia. Quote from Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources "There is no consensus on the reliability of HuffPost. As HuffPost is a newer publication, some editors prefer to use reliable sources with more established reputations. Some editors believe the site reports with a political slant, which makes it biased or opinionated. HuffPost's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher." --ColumbiaXY (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Then take it up at WP:RSN, as I said earlier. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had a look at the WP:RS pages and found nothing there supporting your claim about Real Clear Politics deliberately spreading propaganda. Instead, I did find material warning about the "reliability" of The Daily Beast or Huffington Post. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. RealClearPolitics isn't the issue, but while I'm here I'll point out that the story has been picked up by the Chicago Tribune, Defense One which is published by Atlantic Media who publish The Atlantic magazine, and The Verge.. But the real problem is the author, and looking at Thomas Sowell he's certainly not a reliable source for this purpose. Doug Weller  talk 08:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On what basis is the author not a reliable source? Rather he is an author published by a respected publishing house, a widely respected American economist and social theorist and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford. Keith Johnston (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you not notice the criticism? Not respected by all of his peers. Even the paleoconservative Paul Gottfried is critical of the book. It's also WP:UNDUE I can't find any discussion of it in reliable sources. Doug Weller  talk 15:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The criticism by Richard Coughlin is particularly damning, as is the critique by Bernadette Chachere. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Then lets contextualise his critique by including the countervailing view. No reliable source is above critique.  Keith Johnston (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Do you have any specific rs refuting Sowell's assertions on white privilege?  Id be happy to include this.  Keith Johnston (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keith Johnston - I fail to see how that is fair enough. Bernadette Chachere does not look like much of a scholar or researcher. Her critique of Sowell's work only got 2 citations in more  than 35 years -none of which is in a high impact scientific publication- and, of all her published papers, only one seems to have more than 5 citations - a range typically reserved for more fringe authors. By contrast, Sowell has dozens of works that get between 200 and more than 1300 citations (this alone is more than all the citations Richard Coughlin gets for all his work). Just because some relatively obscure authors challenge some of Sowell's arguments it does not mean they've been completely invalidated and do not deserve to be mentioned on wikipedia. Even if Chachere and Coughlin would be in the same academic league with Sowell, just because they have different opinions than Sowell shouldn't mean that Sowell's arguments should be excluded, especially when the Sowell arguments proposed for inclusion here are different from most of the ideas attacked by its critics. Long debates and challenging ideas is common in fields such as economy, political science, social science, etc. What is worrisome is the tendency of some editors not familiar with these fields to give undue weight to some claims, even when they come from more obscure academics, while trying to exclude more cited authors they don't like --ColumbiaXY (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed and thank you. I meant fair enough insofar as, if there is rs disputing Sowell's claims, then it could be included alongside his claims. What you have made clear is there is no convincing evidence of such rs .Keith Johnston (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Change the main definition
Should the main definition address the fact that it happens mainly in western society where the majority of people are white?

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances in western countries.

Cause social studies on the issue have been mainly done on western countries and unless there are robust scientific proof that this happens in any other part of the world it should be addressed. Byulwwe (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat iffy whether we should be calling South Africa part of the "West" - it's generally considered part of the Global South. And that's one of our key examples, so no. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes! There's no data to support the existence of so-called "white privilege" in China, Japan, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and many other countries. Not including such geographic distinctions would only help promote a fallacy of reification. An Armenian in Turkey will not enjoy the same benefits as an American or a Brit. Much of what is being attributed to "white privilege" globally is backed by opinion (fallacy of reification) and is used to disguise some benefits white americans, canadians and a few others enjoy. Worse, the current definition is biased towards interpretations (some debatable) constructed in parts of Western academia (Western ideological bias).--ColumbiaXY (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * this is a valid criticism of alot of mainstream social sciences, that they are examined only through the context of the west, and are not universal. If we acknowledge that in Malaysia there is Malay privilege see e.g.Ketuanan_Melayu or in Japan there is Japanese privilege Ethnic_issues_in_Japan thus the problem isn't white people per say it is general ethnocentrism || 2601:1C0:6600:9630:2D0A:4AE1:86D1:E506 (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your proposed changes are WP:WEASEL and, honestly, WP:BLUESKY - "white privilege isn't a major social force in places where white people aren't dominant" is rather missing the forest for the trees. And as I mentioned, it's not just an "in the West" phenomenon considering that colonial areas of Africa, such as South Africa, present this phenomenon. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Personal experience, but I have seen white Westerners receive additional benefits over non-white Westerners in Asia. For example, at one university China, one teacher who was black wasn't allowed to use her university's gym facilities because the staff refused to believe that she was a teacher from America and not a student from Africa (even after she showed her ID).  Me?  As long as an area wasn't guarded by gunmen and covered with signs saying "no entrance" in English, I was allowed to wander wherever I wanted (guards with billyclubs and signs in Chinese? No one's gonna stop the white guy, except to try to take a selfie with him).  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

So when in Asian country white are preferred over Asian or black that is white privilege while Affirmative action when black and Hispanic are preferred over white that is called “diversity" and progressive.  Byulwwe (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Still I don’t see study claiming white privilege in Asian. And it’s a joke that without study you take it as truth.

This page is just biased. Byulwwe (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC) and see
 * Substitute "fair skin" for white and you will definitely find a bias in favor of fair skin in some areas, eg India. and see Discrimination based on skin color. Doug Weller  talk 15:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why substitute when they don't refer to the same thing? The lead paragraph says "White privilege is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people" and points to the wikipedia definitions for concepts like "white people" and "non-white people". The wikipedia article on skin color discrimination you mention often talks about something else - i.e. "People in the western hemisphere have long characterised east Asians, specifically Chinese and Japanese people, as "yellow", but the Chinese and Japanese seldom describe their skin color in that way.[22] The Japanese traditionally used the word shiroi – meaning "white" – to describe the lighter shades of skin in their society." - that section talks about subsets of East Asian populations (especially in the references to cultural habits between 8th-12th Century) and not about Western Europeans or whatever. So, is this article and its lead supposed to accurately reflect data & research? Because conflating definitions and editorializing look like POV-pushing to me. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

"Concept"
Why is it controversial to describe white privilege as a concept? This is a very Americocentric viewpoint, and is not consistent with the content of the rest of the article.--Correctus2kX (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * By saying that you want to describe this as a concept because it's Americocentric, it appears you are saying that you want to use this term to subtly downplay the legitimacy of the term. This is a non sequitur. It doesn't matter if, according you as an editor, this is universal or not. Further, this violates WP:NPOV. "Concept" or not, using filler language to implying something about this term isn't appropriate. Additionally, you are also ignoring the multiple examples cited in the article which apply outside of American, such as apartheid and the White Australia policy. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not qualified like that. It should at least state 'in some societies' or 'in some countries'. There are many regions where the concept has no relevance whatsoever. The American experience is being presented as universal here. Correctus2kX (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That still has nothing to do with adding empty filler-words to the first sentence. It is a "concept" in the same way that almost anything could be called a concept, but emphasizing this doesn't provide any useful information to readers. Instead it is just an excuse to add subtle editorializing. Your claim that it has no relevance in some regions is vague, disputable, and irrelevant to this dispute. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not all "concepts" are equal so let's not pretend they are. Concepts in Physics, rigorously defined and supported by science and mountains of empirical data, are not equivalent to concepts in sociology -which can be vague definitions, are not exactly rigorously defined, and have plenty of criticism from Scientists and intellectuals. The current formulation in the first paragraph misleads users into believing a politicized term in the West is actually a hard fact all over the world, one that applies to all "whites", regardless of their nationality, religion and so on. Needless to say but this articles fails massively in providing any Scientific evidence supporting the global existence of "white privilege" as currently defined in the article. Under the article's "Global" section -for example- the lack of evidence is masked by claims -of undue weight- like "One author states that American white men are privileged almost everywhere in the world, even though many countries have never been colonized by Western Europeans" which references someone's opinion in the Guardian and some paper of no scientific value. Even if white americans were privileged all over the world, this is anything but enough in supporting the vast generalization in the article lead. The article lead should properly define the concept, as supported by existing evidence and not make claims not backed by evidence. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. This has come up before, and will surely come up again, on this talk page. "White privilege" is the privilege that favors all white people, but not in all situations or places. As one very limited but very real example, all people identified as 'white' by the Apartheid South African government had legal privileges over those identified as non-white. This was a "hard fact", but it does not mean that white people always had it better than non-white people in every way, or that white people's accomplishments somehow "didn't count" or something. The "privilege" doesn't mean "free pass". While some may use it that way casually or thoughtlessly, that is not the way the term is used by most academics, so that's not what this article is saying.
 * Saying something is a "concept" doesn't mean something is rigorously defined, even in physics. Commentary about a lack of rigor in the humanities has also been made on this page before, and same as before, this absolutely isn't the place for this discussion.
 * Since your summary of the "concept" of white privilege is not consistent with the summary provided by the article, and you have not provided any additional sources, there is little benefit to continuing this discussion. Grayfell (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a phenomenon as described in the article, but we don't need to use the word in the lead. Doug Weller  talk 07:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ColumbiaXY is quite correct. It is a sociological theory open to debate.  To present it as a fact is editorialising.  Can you support ignoring its theoretical routes via RS? Keith Johnston (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the word "theory". That said, you need actual reliable sources that would dispute that the theoretical elements of white privilege (such as the "backpack" concept) fail to accurately describe the phenomena that are under discussion (pay gaps, differential law enforcement, microaggression, etc.) Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a valid criticism is that the term turns the concept of ethnocentrism into the loaded term of "privilege" implying that it is a status that can be taken away rather than a individual right, take for example the list from Peggy Mcintosh's invisible knapsack, most of those things listed are individual rights. || 2601:1C0:6600:9630:2D0A:4AE1:86D1:E506 (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The failure of conservatives with a poor grounding in social sciences is in assuming that the presence of theory means the existence of the phenomena are open to debate when that's not actually the case. Simply put, the theory is the why not the what. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're wrong! It's a logical fallacy to ask someone to prove a negative of your choosing -you're using the old trick of the argument from ignorance. What needs to be done is for this article to present actual proof -aka data and research, not sociological definitions and someone's opinion in the Huffington Post- supporting its claims, especially the hypothetical white privilege that here is presented as something almost universal, irrespective of ethnic or national background which we are to believe exists in all countries despite the absence of research to prove it. Until such evidence to support the worldwide validity of the hypothesis becomes available, the definition should properly attribute this concept to its sociological origins. Your vague claims about "grounding in social sciences" are weasel words and an argument from false authority, especially given the decades long replication crisis dominating the field. You should produce evidence that support the theoretical elements you talk about -not ask others to produce RS of your personal liking that dispute those theoretical claims.--ColumbiaXY (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your oft-cited concern for the replication crisis is veering dangerously into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Gravity is a phenomenon, with a theory that conceptualises it. White privilege is a phenomenon with various sociological theories explaining various aspects of it. It can be conceptualized in a variety of ways. The thing is, like gravity, it's real. Doug Weller  talk 16:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller - I don't think comparing anything in sociology to Gravity is fair. A phenomenon in Physics is not equivalent to what people colloquially call "phenomenon", or to what sociologists, economists or pundits might call a phenomenon. Most theories end up either being invalidated by experiments or are not backed by empirical data or don't properly generalize ("White privilege" is more likely to be like those than like Gravity). "White privilege" is a concept defined in sociology, an umbrella term that has been criticized by economists, social scientists and other academics, especially and when applied globally. Gravity works across scales (though not all) and throughout the observable universe. About "white privilege" there isn't much data supporting its alleged existence across large geographical areas (China, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, etc) and the observable consequences it tries to explain are also explained, at times better, by competing ideas (relating to class, nationality, ethnicity, etc). --ColumbiaXY (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Simonm223 you often try to disrupt debates by arbitrarily invoking policies you don't seem to understand too well. Your replies are snark and polemical but almost never of much substance. Pointing to the abysmal track of the research in social sciences is relevant when discussing concepts imported from that field, especially when those concepts are challenged by other academics, are not back by data that supports the intended generalizations, and so on. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I see we're at the "sociology isn't real science" part of the debate, so I think we can close this. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And when someone with 99 edits says that an editor with over 11,000 edits doesn't understand policy... In any case, this is going nowhere and I agree that WP:DEADHORSE - an essay, not even a guideline let alone policy) is an appropriate description. Doug Weller  talk 17:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug, I don't see how edit-counts are relevant to the point being made. It looks like they're being used for nitpicking, as a pretext to avoid answering the real issues being raised on the subject we were discussing. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we're at the part of the debate where you discard a well documented phenomenon while not addressing the fundamental problems of this article: (1) that many claims are extracted from opinions written by non-scholars and (2) the sweeping generalizations made in the definitions are not backed by data or research. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Gina Crosley-Corcoran in Huffpost, RS?
I am dubious that Gina Crosley-Corcoran writing in the Huffington Post is RS. What are you views? He profile is below and she has written one article on Huffpost. Even accounting for the self-deprecating and tongue-in-cheek style of the profile I am not clear that she has sufficient expertise or that her article had sufficient impact to merit its prominence.

Gina Crosley-Corcoran, CD(DONA), CCCE is a former-rocker-chick-turned-mom, a blogger, and a busy birth worker. While finishing a Master of Public Health in Maternal Child Health, she attends births as a labor doula and travels the country teaching workshops to other professionals. On her blog, she delivers raw stories of her experiences as a “feminist breeder” crafted with angst, humor, and a little profanity. Her work can also be seen in the anthology "The Good Mother Myth" out on Seal Press (January 2014.) At home, Gina is a mother of three spirited children and wife to a bilingual middle school teacher who laughs at all her jokes. Keith Johnston (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What is "entry"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Under the section - white fragility -the entry is: Gina Crosley-Corcoran in her Huffington Post article, "Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person", says that she was initially hostile to the idea that she had white privilege, initially believing, "my white skin didn't do shit to prevent me from experiencing poverty", until she was directed to read Peggy McIntosh's "Unpacking the invisible knapsack". According to Crosley-Corcoran, "the concept of intersectionality recognizes that people can be privileged in some ways and definitely not privileged in others".[30] Keith Johnston (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it is published under huffpost/entry. This this is clearly a subsection of their site, what is it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.huffpost.com/entry/explaining-white-privilege-to-a-broke-white-person_b_5269255 Keith Johnston (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the question. We're asking what the "Entry" section of Huffpo is for. Editorials? Reviews? Reporting? That's important to determining if this an RS. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Its not obvious to me what the "entry" is from reading the article. Perhaps a more regular user of the Huffpost can determine it, otherwise it is underdetermined. Keith Johnston (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that the token ‘entry’ appears in the url doesn’t mean it’s a subsection, or that it’s “published under” it. It could exist for purely technical reasons having to do with how their articles are uploaded, maintained, advertised, tracked, or other reasons. I don’t see the word Entry or anything like it in the rendered page, so the assumption should be that it is meaningless for the purposes of this discussion section. Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did a cursory check, and it does appear that individual huffington post articles are housed at /entry/ - the content type being sorted is individual article vs index or landing page. Simonm223 (talk)
 * It says she is a "contributer", []. So it looks like a blog.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * At the very least it's an opinion piece. However I'd suggest, considering Huffington's complicated relationship with free content, it's difficult to ascertain whether it's a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was basing that on what the page said "The guidelines below are sent to all new and prospective bloggers from the outset.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's assuming that Huffington doesn't call all people, paid and volunteer, edited and ignored, "contributors" - and frankly they kind of do call all people, paid and volunteer, edited and ignored, "contributors." Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * [], not listed as a "contributor" contribution, nor is this []. Its clear from this that "contributor" has a specific meaning. And that seems to be "not in our name".Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, thats useful. It seems fair to conclude from this discussion that it has not added to Gina Crosley-Corcoran's standing as rs.  Given this I propose to remove it unless anyone wants to make the case for it?  Keith Johnston (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah, seems low quality. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Social media era
This article unhelpfully uses the term: 'social media era' in its narrative section. As it comes after the section on 2000s I can only assume it refers to the 2010s. This is not a commonly used term that I am aware of. It is also confusing as commentary on white privilege after 2010 may have little or nothing to do with social media- such as the publication of new research or books. I suggest replacing this with "2010s". Keith Johnston (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Factual or Theoretical
I'm just a bit curious. Why does this article present White privilege as if it were an established fact, while the article on Societal privilege presents it as if it were a theory? It seems that nobody is really addressing this on either talk page. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To be constructive do you have reliable sources which say that White privilege is a theory? Can you link to them?  What changes do you suggest making?  Keith Johnston (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that we make the two articles more consistent. I am not informed on the subject, as I do not have the money to pay for all of these studies, but I do think that it is pretty obvious that an Encyclopedia as reliable as Wikipedia should never contradict itself to this extent. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It appears that the article on Social privilege was recently edited to turn it into a theory. Please see changes from Aug 2019, especially in the lead: . --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

We've discussed the non-theoretical nature of white privilege on this page several times before, including here.--Carwil (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Keith Johnston -- The default is that the claim is merely that - a claim. The onus is on the speaker of the assertion in question to show that the assertion is anything more than a claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenwiliams (talk • contribs) 01:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The Year in Hashtags: 2014: prominence and rs doubts
I am concerned over the prominence and reliability of the Sunnivie Brydum source in the lede. The section is:

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.[9]

This is not an academic source, and "The Year in Hashtags" is a journalistic roundup of the year's most popular hashtags. It is also a single source, not multiple as the summary suggests. It is dubious RS and is given undue prominence. I would suggest striking it. Any views? Keith Johnston (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well at the least a re-write, and moving out of the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I cant see much justification for including it at all. Its not based on any empirical research and doesn't bring any new arguments to bear.  The publication is RS but neither the author nor piece are prominent.  I have removed it. Does anyone want to argue for it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 10:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Many of the people on this talk page also have a history of defensiveness and misunderstanding of this topic, so it would be very nice if we could retain this information in some way. The source is weak, but the claim isn't controversial, and since it supposedly "doesn't bring any new arguments" then it may still be useful as a summary of a significant perspective. A quick search shows plenty of additional sources which touch on this topic, although deeper digging is needed. "Why do so many white people deny the existence of white privilege?" on The Undefeated is by Brando Simeo Starkey, who has also published on issues of race with Cambridge U. Press, suggesting topic expertise. There are many more out there. Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should go beyond merely explaining the theory and cover the popular reaction to the claims of white privilege theory. Isn't this done already in the White fragility section? Keith Johnston (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)