Talk:White privilege/Archive 18

Sociological concept
This is a sociological concept and is academic theory. The article mainly focuses on academics such as Mcintosh and how the theory has been picked up by some in the mainstream media. Not making reference to that in the lede is misleading. if it is not a sociological concept or an academic theory, then what is it? what do you call this? what is White Privilege if it is not an academic concept or a sociological concept? Sparkle1 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It 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. Adding empty filler words accomplishes nothing. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that they are not empty and they are not filler words. They are a standard qualification for the concept, in sociology, and an important distinction for a concept that is and has been largely debated by scholars. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's a phenomenon described by a sociological concept. Attempting to make the article suggest it's simply an abstract, a consequence free thought puzzle, is a violation of WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s an arse about face description. It treats white privilege as a discovery and a fact. Which it is not. White privilege is not a phenomenon, it is a description given to a theory advanced by Macintosh in her 1989 paper. To claim it is not a sociological concept or to omit that, is a violation of WP:NPOV. Not the other way round. To claim at as more than a theory it needs to be provable and factual with limited to no mainstream alternatives. The round earth theory is an example of a wholly provable and factual academic theory. White privilege is most certainly not the same as that. The article is a largely academic leaning article with aspects of the mid 2010’s entrance into a less academic audience. Claiming it is not a sociological concept is the same way some individuals treat the bible. Some treat it as fact others treat it as fiction. Wikipedia reflects it as a book of religion. It doesn’t reflect it as ‘’a work of fiction’’ or ‘’the true telling of the foundation of the creation of the world’’. It reflects it neutrally by calling it what it is. The same must be applied here or it is inaccurate. White privilege began in academic theory circles and then moved outside of those circles. Not the other way round. Trying to portray white privilege as anything other is not calling it what it really is. Sparkle1 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The article does not require filler words such as "sociological concept" and so on. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * These are not filler words as has been pointed out by . They are a standard qualification for an academic theory or concept. Not including them is denying what this is and adding a POV that this is somehow a great and revelatory discovery of facts. I feel in this discussion I am encountering evangelists who refuse to accept this is a theory and believe this is cold hard fact. This is just an academic theory nothing more. Simply re-claiming calling something what it actually is as "filler" is not discussing. It is simply intransigence, with no substance behind it. Sparkle1 (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gravity is just a theory. The idea that white privilege is just a theory with no substance - how can you say it's got no reality to it? Maybe your life experience is very different from mine. Doug Weller  talk 18:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is wholly missing the point and is a false equivalency. Where is the proof to back up this concept as more than just a theory? This is not a phenomenon as the evangelists keep on claiming. A phenomenon is an observable fact or event. White privilege is an interpretation of facts and events. it is not directly observable ergo not a phenomenon. Something "invisible" is literally not visible. White privilege is also not physically measurable and therefore not observable. The claims of White privilege being anything other than sociological concept lack proof and confirmation.
 * The arguments being presented here to stop calling something what it is are weak and soporific. They are recycled over and over, just from different users. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's easy to find people who think it can be measured. Just do a search on measuring white privilege. And . Resorting to nsme-calling doesn't impress.  Doug Weller  talk 21:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gosh, it's like you're not listening for some reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Referring to individuals who are from academia reinforces the point that this is an academic concept. The above source is an academic reference and shows this is simply an academic concept. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep using the word "academic" as if it means "not real," which is not an attitude that's compatible with a site that just summarizes academic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Socioeconomic status, mental illness, and addiction would all be examples of academic concepts in social sciences as well.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If rs says its a theory its a theory, if it doesnt it doesn't. The rest is just the personal view of editors, which is not significant to our purpose in editing. Does rs say its a theory or not? If so which rs? Keith Johnston (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * here Phyllis May-Machunda, Ph.D. Professor, American Multicultural Studies, describes White privilege as a 'a theoretical framework for viewing the dynamics and structure of oppression' https://nationalseedproject.org/Key-SEED-Texts/peggy-mcintosh-s-white-privilege-papers  here White privilege is described as both a  'theory' and a 'concept'  https://din.today/the-theory-of-white-privilege-why-racism-is-not-a-privilege/ and here White privilege is described as a 'paradigm'  https://areomagazine.com/2019/01/07/the-progressive-case-against-white-privilege/   These are good places to start a discussion around rs claims that white privilege is indeed a 'theory'  Does anyone wish to support or dispute this rs or can provide rs demonstrating its not a theory? Keith Johnston (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's like I mentioned way back when, white privilege is a phenomenon. There are sociological theories which describe the phenomenon and attempt to ascertain its causes. But this article treats the phenomenon using the academic research about it. It'd be disingenuous to present the phenomenon as if it sprang wholly formed out of the heads of academics like it was Economics or something. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have rs to support this view? I dont believe the opinions of editors, unsupported by rs, will take the discussions forward productively especially when there is rs 'on the table'. Keith Johnston (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller  do you have rs to justify reverting my edits, which were supported by rs? Keith Johnston (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you haven't searched for any yourself? Just search Google Scholar and you'll find them. It's a real thing with statistics.. I'm not saying it isn't described as a concept or a theory, of course it is. I'm going offline shortly. Doug Weller  talk 21:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doug, so in summary you have no RS and you agree its a concept? In this case I dont understand why you reverted by edits, especially as you make no attempt to justify this by reference to actual rs.  For the benefit of other editors the edit was to the opening:  "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a sociological concept describing the societal privilege..."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 18:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:IDHT. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. if that's the way you interpret what I said, I don't see how I can take you seriously. Since there are sources for concept, theory, phenomenon, etc it's odd that you can only find those that support your view. Hell, I even provided a source and you claim I have no RS. Bottom line, you don't have consensus.  Doug Weller  talk 19:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup. There's no shortage of sources to say that Natural selection is a theory, but it's also an actual thing. This effort to crowbar "theory" into the lead is getting tedious. William Avery (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In determining consensus the quality of an argument and its supporting sources are more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. Here are more reliable sources discussing "white privilege theory" and white privilege in the context of "theories of race relations". https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=soc_fac The authors are Professor Hyeyoung Woo, Department of Sociology, Portland State University. Professor Arthur Sakamoto, Department of Sociology, University of Texas, and Professor Isao Takei, Department of International Relations, Nihon University. Keith Johnston (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And here is Shannon Sullivan, Professor of Philosophy and Health Psychology at University of North Carolina, discussing "the concept of white privilege" https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190236953.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190236953-e-8 Keith Johnston (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A) That's not what consensus means here.
 * B) Your cherry picking of sources to try and push "it's only a theory!" has been noted, and we're not persuaded by it. I don't know why you think repeating the behavior will suddenly work. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats your view, here is the view of Khiara M. Bridges, Professor of Law and Professor of Anthropology, Boston University, discussing the "concept of white privilege". http://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/Bridges_Book.pdf Keith Johnston (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's tendentious behavior to just keep throwing out any link that has the word "concept" or "theory" in it in an attempt to bludgeon us into letting you change the meaning of the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks finding reliable sources to support argumentation is vital to meeting Wikipedia's editing standards. If you have reliable sources to refute Khiara M. Bridges, Professor of Law and Professor of Anthropology, et al I would love to see them.  Otherwise making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on the tendentious editing page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly.  Meanwhile here is Professor Emeritus Wilburn Hayden, Jr. examining "the concept of white privilege" https://www.jstor.org/stable/41446518?seq=1 Keith Johnston (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have to refute anything because you've not made an assertion beyond "they used this word!" Your entire schtick is to do that, search for any instance of the words "theory" or "concept" in a document and proclaim that means you're right. That's not evidence, it's just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. You're cherry-picking and bludgeoning the talk page, so I don't see any value in engaging further with you. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

So it seems to me at least enough sources have been provided above to at least consider a wording change. Arkon (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A shit ton of sources are provided... but it's the equivalent of going to Peer presure and saying "This is a sociological concept and is academic theory." Yes, it's those things and an actual observed phenomenon. These sources are being thrown out to attempt to downplay its reality, and turn it into "just a theory" that people can dismiss. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is true group differences are an actual observed phenomenon. But that is not what we are debating.  The question is whether white privilege is the only or best way to explain - or conceptualise -  those differences.


 * The reliable sources consistently demonstrate that a majority on the liberal-left believe that white privilege is the best way to explain the phenomenon of differences in group outcomes. This is supported by a huge number of studies from University professors, especially subject matter experts who teach white privilege and critical race theory.   These studies make excellent reliable sources.  A minority view amongst liberal-left sociologists is that, as white privilege does not explain the relative success of Asian-Americans, it is not such a useful concept.


 * Equally, conservatives disagree with the contention that white privilege explains the relative success of racial groups. These conservative criticisms tend to be expressed by economists and cultural commentators. Judged against the ‘subject matter experts’ on the liberal-left it is possible, because Wikipedia assumes the academy is neutral, to sideline or dismiss the conservative critique.  Since conservatives tend not to be sociology professors and do not make careers out of studying concepts they do not believe in, the temptation to dismiss their views has been indulged.  It is also possible that conservatives are less interested in editing wikipedia pages on concepts they do not believe are useful, leading to discussions where the weight of numbers, if not the weight of argument, is liberal-left.


 * Therefore by presenting white privilege as THE explanation for the phenomenon of group outcome difference- and not AN explanation - this wikipedia page is not neutral because it presents the majority liberal-left view as fact and dismisses both the liberal-left critique and the conservative critique.   The inclusion of the word ‘concept’ in the lede becomes essential to redress this balance.  This is a fair and balanced word to use since it does not dismiss white privilege but it correctly contextualises it as one way -but crucially not the only way -  of explaining differences in group outcomes.  To omit this is an ongoing violation of WP:NPOV. Keith Johnston (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Aaaaand there it is. "Wikipedia is biased against conservatives!" isn't a compelling argument. If you think this is what's happening, take it up with the admins. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The fact that there are sufficient reliable sources, but a few editors are refusing to allow the edit to pass seems to be an arbitrary and subjective decision.

The article initially described White Privilege as a concept for several years until it was subjectively changed one day without any sources cited (relevant talk). Despite that, the current version of this article still consistently refers to White Privilege as a concept throughout. The sources cited in this article also refer to it as a concept throughout. Additionally, why is the Male Privilege article on Wikipedia referred to as a concept while this one is no longer? I've yet to see an argument, that isn't a subjective opinion, against referring to White Privilege as a concept in the article's lead.

We need more voices weighing in on this, something I think both sides of the debate can agree on is that this discussion has gone nowhere.SprayCanToothpick (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC
There is debate weather or not the White Privilege should be referred to as a concept in the lead, as it used to be. Please read through both viewpoints presented in the talk page, thank you for taking time out of your day to chip in! SprayCanToothpick (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Should be stated as a concept - I essentially agree with what wrote above; "White privilege is not a phenomenon, it is a description given to a theory advanced by Macintosh in her 1989 paper. To claim it is not a sociological concept or to omit that, is a violation of WP:NPOV." As for my own thoughts, "White privilege" is a contentious concept with many holes to begin with - it completely ignores that Asians, for example, tend to have more wealth and less criminal statistics than whites in many historically white countries. It ignores the fact that the majority group in any country will have specific advantages inherent to being the majority. Where's a page on "Japanese privilege" in Japan, "African privilege" in Ethiopia, "Hispanic privilege" in Mexico, etc? Frankly, to single whites out with this I daresay is anti-white. Even more reason it should be underscored that this is a concept/theory. Edit5001 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Retain page as phenomenon, not simply "concept/theory" - I see we're going to rehash a discussion that petered out over a month ago. And such a great start, with "where's the page on X privilege" (aka WP:OTHERSTUFF) & "pointing out problems is anti-white". Suffice to say, I've made my point above: this is an observed phenomenon, covered in multiple peer-reviewed reliable sources, and all arguments to remove that statement are attempts to pull "it's just a theory!" dismissal, or literal whitewashing as we see above. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Rather than letting emotion seep into this, let's focus on policy. Can you provide the multiple peer reviewed sources you mention that state White Privilege is a hard fact. Please and thank you. After we all look through them, we might be able to come to a compromise, or even an agreement. I think this may just be the first step forward in the debate for all of us. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this ain't "the first step". If you are interested in sources, first take a look at the ones which are already cited in the article. The talk page and it's archives are also full to the brim with these same points raised over and over. Grayfell (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, the article itself refers to White Privilege as a concept. Many of the sources throughout the article refer to it as a concept. Here's one of the sentences in the opening paragraph for example from the article, note the source in particular: Quote frame|As an academic concept that was only recently brought into the mainstream, the concept of white privilege is frequently misinterpreted by non-academics; some academics, having studied white privilege undisturbed for decades, have been surprised by the seemingly-sudden hostility from right-wing critics since approximately 2014.
 * When the source itself calls it a concept, it should be referred to as such in the article. Which it is. Many of the other sources are the same way. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I brought up the lack of other articles on "X privilege" simply to show why this whole concept is just that, a concept, by a specific group of people who have a strong interest in demonizing white people for political/social power and gains. And also, way to completely dodge the point about how the theory is racist and anti-white, and I love how you didn't even try to touch the point about Asians. Edit5001 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is this comment directed at me? It should be directed at  The Hand That Feeds You . I did not state disagreement with your argument, he did. I'm in favor of referring to it as a concept which is the same position you are. I didn't dodge your point or refuse to touch on your point. If there's 100 RFC replies, is it my responsibility respond to all of them? Otherwise I'm "dodging" comments? Please assume good faith of your fellow editors and don't throw personal accusations.  The Hand That Feeds You  is the one who countered you, not me, please take it up with him. This is placing me in a darned if I do, darned if I don't situation. You're arguing with the wrong person. I am not responsible for his claims, I am not responsible for your claims, I am not responsible for replying to every single RFC comment. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I meant to direct that response to, not you. Edit5001 (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All good, misunderstandings happen. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No, retain as is - Extremely well sourced that it has existed for centuries. Indeed, there are some that bemoan the fact it is not as much of a privilege as so during the days of slavery. The fact that other kinds of privilege also exist is not relevant. Nowhere is it said that this is the only advantage that exists anywhere. O3000 (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to provide a single 19th Century source using the term 'white privilege' to back up your statement that it is "Extremely well sourced that it has existed for centuries". I'm asking for just one 19th Century source that uses the term 'white privilege' in the correct context. Should be very easy to provide given all the apparent sources documenting it. Thanks.Telenarn (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You don’t need a source from the 19th Century to show that it existed in the 19th Century any more than you need a source printed 200 million years ago to show that Pangaea broke apart. O3000 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the geological record is it's own source, you must surely have something equivalent to back up your claim that it is "Extremely well sourced that it has existed for centuries". Where are the 18th and 19th Century sources which mention this centuries old phenomenon?Telenarn (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not need sources from the past or exact naming to show events in the past. We use scholarship that examines the past. But, if you want a 19th Century primary source, read the Cornerstone Speech. Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. You can respond if you wish. But, that’s all I have to say to you. O3000 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your source doesn't mention white privilege at all. It is, in my opinion, highly racist, and I think that most reasonable people would agree that it is. It's very racist, but it does nothing to bolster your argument that it is "Extremely well sourced that it has existed for centuries". The speech to me is a decleration of racism, of supremacy, I find it vile and uncnonscionable, but I fail to see where white privilege enters the equation at all. The reason for this disagreement - in my opinon - is that white privilege is a realatively modern theory to explain both contemporary and historic acts of racism, oppression and prejudice against non-whites, and that is exactly why it needs to be presented as such in the lede. It's a theory which is made to fit the facts, not a fact in and of itself. I'm amazed this is even under discussionTelenarn (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This 1864 source clearly discusses white privilege. Doug Weller  talk 19:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your clear, and direct policy based response. Could you please provide said sources so we can all look through them and assess weather the sources describe it as a concept or a hard fact? Thank you.SprayCanToothpick (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No, retain as is - On its face, this is empty filler which doesn't really explain anything. Conflating race with nationality and then assuming these things must be treated exactly the same tips the hand that the real purpose is to cast doubt on the term by side-stepping reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling it an empty filler is a subjective opinion. Referring to it as a concept was not considered an empty filler for several years until it was removed one day, without citations. Let's focus on policy and cited sources.SprayCanToothpick (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The 'reliable' sources have been used to present the theory. Just because they're academic sources does not mean the theory is not disputed. You're confusing subjective argument with facts. It's a fact that there are seven days in a week, it is subjective opinion that the phenomenon of 'White Privilege' both exists and exerts and influence throughout the world. The validity of the opinion is bolstered by a great body of academic argument, but it is far from accepted fact and this must be recognised in the article.Telenarn (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No, retain as is. Whether white privilege exists has already been discussed ad nauseum, and most editors have agreed that the phenomenon exists. This RfC is not too likely to lead to new insights. Some of what's been said to support white privilege denialism --- the notion that it doesn't really exist but is just a theory of sociologists --- is absurd.  "Hispanic privilege" in Mexico. Huh?? Ever been to Mexico?  anti-white...demonizing white people.  Sure --- just as some people claim that any discussion of social structures that favor males is "anti-male" and "demonizes men," and that the historical phenomenon of male privilege doesn't really exist but is just a sociological theory. NightHeron (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's anti-white when whites are deemed as oppressors due to being better off in certain countries while other races that outperform whites in those same countries (Asians and Jews) receive none of the same criticisms. Edit5001 (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No, retain as is. This is just the "Evolution is only a theory" argument recycled. Of course the article uses the word concept. "Concepts are created (named) to describe, explain and capture reality as it is known and understood." But leading with the word is a way of disguising the reality, particularly with the phrasing "sociological concept" which few readers would really understand anyway and isn't an accurate description. This whole is a basic misunderstanding of the literature. I love the poorly disguised "If you want this in you're a racist". Doug Weller  talk 08:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, describe as sociological concept. Evolution is a scientific theory. Critical Race Theory, however, is not a science. It's a sociological field - one of many that give very different and mutually contradictory views of society. Yeah, a lot of people who frequently edit this particular page believe that CRT is the correct description of society, but they should at least separate personal conviction and fact, and not make an equivalence between CRT and scientific fields like biology or climatology. Fundamentally, I just don't understand the desire here to obfuscate the fact that we're describing a concept from CRT. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, describe as sociological concept. To reiterate my previous comment:
 * “The fact that there are sufficient reliable sources, but a few editors are refusing to allow the edit to pass seems to be an arbitrary and subjective decision.
 * The article initially described White Privilege as a concept for several years until it was subjectively changed one day without any sources cited (relevant talk). Despite that, the current version of this article still consistently refers to White Privilege as a concept throughout. The sources cited in this article also refer to it as a concept throughout. Additionally, why is the Male Privilege article on Wikipedia referred to as a concept while this one is no longer? I've yet to see an argument, that isn't a subjective opinion, against referring to White Privilege as a concept in the article's lead.” SprayCanToothpick (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interesting observation about the Male privilege article. Probably that article should be edited so that the lead does not define that term as merely a sociological concept, especially since the beginning of the main body (the overview section) starts out by correctly defining it as a phenomenon.  Of course it's also a concept in sociology, women's studies, and other areas, and the same is true of white privilege.  Both need to be defined as a phenomenon, one that has been studied academically.  One can disagree with the way academics study these phenomena, and in fact the white privilege article does contain substantial criticism.  But that's not the same as disputing the existence. NightHeron (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your civility and willingness to engage in an actual policy discussion. I think you raise an interesting AND very productive point of phenomena vs concept! For example documented instances of White Privilege in European Colonialism could be a factual statement, as cited in the lead. However the claim that modern America or other Western countries remain plagued with White Privlige is a concept opposed to a fact, with differing claims from scholars (most modern sources refer to it as a concept). What aspects of White Privilege are fact and what is theory should be distinguished in the opening paragraph, if you agree to this (and others do too) we might be able to work toward a proper compromise. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be wrong to state in Wikipedia's voice that modern America or other countries are "plagued" with white privilege, or for Wikipedia to endorse any theory such as Critical Race Theory. But white privilege is a phenomenon, and not only in earlier time periods.  In an earlier discussion on this talk-page that I initiated (see Response to NPOV/N discussion) I gave some specific indisputable examples of white privilege in modern America.  However, I also said that there is plenty of legitimate controversy about ways that white privilege is analyzed and dealt with in pedagogical settings.  I added a section on white privilege pedagogy that cited mainstream sources that had strong criticisms of that approach.  While it is a fringe viewpoint to deny that white privilege exists (now and in the past), it is not fringe to criticize over-use of the term. NightHeron (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're confusing the concept of white privilege, which comes from Critical Race Theory, with the evidence that Critical Race Theorists use to try to argue that the concept is correct. Just pointing out various facts or anecdotes does not substantiate that white privilege exists, because white privilege is an interpretive framework used to try to explain those facts. It is not the same as the facts themselves. To give you an analogy from science, the fact that things fall to the ground is the observation, and universal gravitation is a theory (the correct one, it turns out) that explains those facts. You're confusing those two things.
 * But unlike with gravity, there is demonstrably plenty of "legitimate controversy" over whether the concept of white privilege accurately describes society, as evidenced by the many critics of the idea (by Marxists, conservatives, and many others outside of Critical Race Theory). This is not a case of science vs. ignorant critics. It's a case of one sociological framework vs. other, competing frameworks. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As an aside, not a great example. Universal gravitation is an approximation that does not work in all circumstances and has been superseded. O3000 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an important point that needs to be absorbed. Science is chaotic and incomplete. The social sciences are relatively messy and undeveloped, in part due to the nature of the data and the involvement of practitioners in the phenomena under study. But to introduce the sixth grade science class model of physical phenomena like gravity having been neatly and perfectly explained is preposterous.  SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * you're making a false assumption here about me. I'm very well aware that there is no single theory of gravity and that science is chaotic and incomplete. Look at the recent research into Dark Matter for instance. This is my point. White privilege is a phenomenon, the explanations of it are perhaps also messy and incomplete. Doug Weller  talk 16:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Damn.repinging {{re|Objective3000)) and striking through a bit. I thought the comments were about me, but it looks as though I was wrong.  Doug Weller  talk 16:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec){{ping|Doug Weller}} I was referring to Objective3000's response to Thucydides, who has used these references to physical sciences in what sounds to me like a dismissal of the phenomenon without considering the relationship between the phenomenon and the ways we describe it. Reviewing your most recent post above, I agree with everything you say and thought I was arguing for that view. Or at least that my statement below in this thread was consistent with yours.  SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * {{re|SPECIFICO}} thanks. Sadly I only figured that out after my first post. We have the same opinion here . Doug Weller  talk 16:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

{{out}} The word privilege has an objective meaning in the English language. To say that someone has a "privilege" is not {{tq|an interpretative framework}} but rather a statement of fact that might be true or false. The statement that privileges accrue to white people in certain situations is similarly a statement of fact, and to dispute that is fringe. Of course, many critics say that the term white privilege is used improperly or over-used by some academics, and that criticism belongs in the article (and is in the article). NightHeron (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I crossed out a part of my comment that's no longer correct, since a week after I wrote that almost all of the criticism was removed from the article for reasons that make no sense in my opinion. See Talk:White privilege below. This raises issues of NPOV for the article as a whole, but not for the lead, so it doesn't affect my vote in this RfC. NightHeron (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. A similar situation exists, for example in the economic theories concerning "business cycles". There's agreement that the phenomenon exists but no wide agreement as to a full definition, let alone an explanation. It's important to cover the phenomenon and to convey the extent to which it is understood. For this, our NPOV policy guides us very well.  SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The phenomenon in this case is the set of disparities that Critical Race Theorists argue are explained through white privilege - the interpretive framework. No, saying that someone has "white privilege" is not a simple statement of fact. Critical Race Theorists argue that various disparities constitute a form of privilege for white people, but that's a novel argument that they invented, and which is not universally agreed upon. There are many critiques of the idea, from Marxists, Libertarians, conservatives, and all sorts of other people. One common critique of the concept of white privilege, which a previous version of the article discussed, is that it misuses the word "privilege", calling a state of non-discrimination that most people enjoy and which almost everyone thinks everyone should enjoy a privilege, when the better term is "right".
 * I made the analogy between the observation that things fall (compare with: there are average disparities in income between whites and African Americans in the United States) and the theory of universal gravitation (compare with: these disparities are a form of white privilege, or are caused by it, or are perpetuated by it, depending on which CRT argument you're going to follow). I also pointed out that unlike with gravity, we're not talking about science here. We're talking about sociology, and a rather political corner of sociology at that. That's where my analogy stops being accurate, but the point of the analogy is just to point out the difference between the empirical observations and the theory that is offered to explain them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's much well-reasoned criticism of over-use and misuse of the term "white privilege." I agree with your example: not being mistreated is not a privilege but a right.  However, there are major undeniable cases, now and in the past, where forms of privilege in the correct meaning of the term are typically enjoyed by whites and not by people of color as a consequence of systemic racism.  For example, suppose that in some region most African Americans have been put in inferior schools for generations and denied opportunities in other ways and cannot get hired for good jobs.  A consequence is that even middle-class white families are able to afford nannies, servants, and other low-paid help.  This is a privilege that they would not enjoy if they'd been born black or if there had not been such a pattern of racism in that region.  White privilege is a phenomenon that has existed much, much longer than Critical Race Theory or even the whole field of sociology or women's studies.  An obvious example is the antebellum plantations in the South of the US. NightHeron (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * {{tq|I agree with your example: not being mistreated is not a privilege but a right.}} Then you agree with one of the major arguments against the sociological concept of "white privilege". Much of what CRT calls a "privilege" falls under this category (commonly referred to as "rights"), as critics like Lewis Gordon have pointed out. {{tq|"A consequence is that even middle-class white families are able to afford nannies, servants, and other low-paid help. This is a privilege that they would not enjoy if they'd been born black or if there had not been such a pattern of racism in that region."}} Marxists argue that this is a consequence of class, and that being born black is not what matters, but rather being born poor. There are rich and middle-class African Americans as well, who can afford to hire low-paid help. There are also poor whites who cannot afford to hire low-paid help. In any case, whichever of these competing views you or I personally find more persuasive, you have to recognize that competing views exist and are by no means WP:FRINGE. {{tq|"White privilege is a phenomenon that has existed much, much longer than Critical Race Theory or even the whole field of sociology or women's studies."}} Again, you're confusing the empirical facts with the concept in CRT. The CRT theory of white privilege has existed for a few decades. Many of the facts that people in CRT use to argue that white privilege exists have existed for longer than a few decades. But others, including Marxists (as I've illustrated above), draw very different conclusions from the same set of underlying facts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To argue against the existence of white privilege by pointing to situations where white privilege is not present is illogical. It's like saying that because there are situations where African Americans are not treated in a racist way, that means that racism in America does not exist.  Denying the existence of white privilege, just like denying the existence of racism, is fringe.  It's not fringe to say, as some Marxists do, that the best way to analyze racism or white privilege is to focus on class rather than race; or to say, as some conservatives do, that a rising tide lifts all boats, so we should focus not on inequality but on improving the economy.  One can debate how to analyze, explain, or respond to a phenomenon, but that's not the same as denying its existence. NightHeron (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the logic is clear: the argument is that what you're describing is not a "privilege" of skin color, but rather of social class. This is an extremely common criticism of the concept of "white privilege", but hardly the only common criticism. Other common criticisms relate to the use of the word "privilege" (as I mentioned earlier), and the fact that going by things like income, wealth, health or education, white people are hardly the most "privileged" group in America (many ethnic groups, including immigrants from some African countries, are far more "privileged" by such measures). We don't have to personally agree with such criticisms to recognize that they exist and are prominent. That should be enough for us to not have Wikipedia declare the CRT concept of "white privilege" to be correct. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Study after study has concluded that blacks in the US of the same financial background pay higher interest rates, are guided to different neighborhoods, are prescribed less effective medical treatments, are more likely to be harassed by the police, serve longer sentences for similar crimes, etc. Just two months ago, an investigation revealed widespread housing discrimination against blacks and other minorities in New York’s suburbs, more than 50 years after the Fair Housing Act. Let us stop pretending this is an academic construct. O3000 (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The explanation of these observations through the theory of "white privilege" is indeed an academic construct developed in Critical Race Theory, and it is heavily disputed. Again, you're confusing a set of empirical observations with the interpretive framework that attempts to explain those observations. To give you one common line of argumentation against this interpretive framework, by the very same measures you're quoting, other non-white minorities fare better, on average, than whites. This is clearly a difficult challenge to "white privilege" theory, because it implies that the "privilege" (if one accepts that term in the nonstandard way the CRT uses it) is not held by white people alone, but rather by many minority groups. See the entire debate over "model minorities". -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Marxists?? All five of them? Get a grip. It's AD 2020.  SPECIFICO talk 13:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, {{u|SPECIFICO}} has officially declared that Critical Race Theory > Marxism (and conservatism, and Libertarianism, I'll assume). I guess that settles that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's hardly helpful. In fact, I'm not sure why anyone feels we have to discuss critical race theory here to make a decision. Doug Weller  talk 16:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because "white privilege" is a concept from Critical Race Theory. I don't think it's helpful that SPECIFICO discounts a major ideological current (Marxism) with a reference to the fact that the year is 2020. I hope that's what you're responding to with your comment about "hardly helpful". -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, it was your comment that I didn't think moved the discussion any further or made the environment more conducive to discussion. Doug Weller  talk 19:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You must be joking. Can you see how your differential reaction to SPECIFICO's comment and mine looks like political bias? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, describe as sociological concept. I have given sources to support this in other debates above. But this isnt binary.  Its not an either/or.  There is a debate in the literature which we are reflecting.  So change to say 'The term is controversial with proponents arguing it is a phenomenon while critics claim it is a sociological concept which lacks empirical foundation". Keith Johnston (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Retain as-is. Nationality is a sociological concept too if you want to put it that way, but it's unhelpful. Guy (help!) 18:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Retain as is Super weasely wording. White privilege is not a concept or a theory, it's easily demonstrated and verified via myriad studies, census data etc. It's like calling climate change a concept. Bacondrum (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why wasn't it considered weaselly wording from 2006-2012, then suddenly transformed from a concept to a fact in 2012? Why do the sources in the article refer to it as a concept? People here argue that it should be stated as both a phenomena and a sociological concept which is a fair discussion, but the argument that it's only a fact with no concept aspects is a poor argument.SprayCanToothpick (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Retain as-is. Everything discussed in academia could be described as a "[subject] concept"; but doing so, especially in this context, is an inappropriate expression of doubt ala WP:ALLEGED.  Disputes and disagreements over exactly what qualifies as privilege and how to approach it are detailed further down; but at least in academia its existence (on some level, to some basic degree) is not in serious doubt, so it is inappropriate for us to go for a wording that would imply that it is. EDIT: The critiques within academia do not, generally, doubt its existence; they disagree over how to approach it. And this is indeed a scientific concept - social science is science. In that respect the ideological objections from "conservatives and liberatarians" outlined below are no different than their objections to global warming - the fact that non-experts outside the discipline dislike its conclusions are not sufficient for us to cast doubt on it in the article voice.  We can and do cover these objections in the article, but we still have to approach it from the mainstream academic perspective. --Aquillion (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * {{tq|"in academia its existence (on some level, to some basic degree) is not in serious doubt"}}: In Critical Race Theory, that's true. It's not necessarily true elsewhere. For example, the concept comes under critique from Marxists and historians (Eric Arnesen, for example). Outside academia, it comes under heavy critique from conservative and Libertarian social commentators. CRT is not a science, so I don't see any reason to elevate its viewpoint above that of people from other fields or social commentators from outside academia. It's one out of many views on society. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a single academic source that says that white privilege does not exist, that there's no such thing, that white people never benefit from privileges because of racism? I don't mean an academic source that says that certain other authors over-use the term or use it inappropriately in their theories. There's plenty of criticism of the latter sort. NightHeron (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Describe as a concept per WP:WikiVoice. When there is a controversy, we don't take sides. We describe the concept. The current (non-concept) version takes sides. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article uses the word "concept" 26 times. But to suggest in the lead that it is only a concept both flies in the face of reality and take sides. Worse, there is no "the concept". There are various ways of conceptualizing the societal privilege and the literature makes that abundantly clear.  Doug Weller  talk 15:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously this can vary depending where on one lives. But here in the United States, the overt discrimination is typically against whites, and even more against people of ancestry from East Asia or India, e.g. in college admissions. That said, there is plenty of covert discrimination in the other direction, so I get it why many people would think of "white privilege." But that's not a sufficient reason to state it that way in Wikipedia's voice. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * {{tq|But here in the United States, the overt discrimination is typically against whites,}} That's a fringe opinion that's contradicted by mounds of statistical and other evidence.
 * Logically, the statement that white privilege indisputably exists does not mean that whites experience privilege all the time. In the course of the talk page discussions examples have been given that show clearly that white privilege exists in many situations, although not in all situations. NightHeron (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing, for example, that a white person with a 1400 SAT would have the same chance of getting into Harvard as a black person with a 1400 SAT? Or that an East Asian person with a 1400 SAT would have as good a chance as either? Adoring nanny (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that a black and white person of the same mental intelligence and effort have an equal chance of scoring 1400 in their SATs? In any case, we use reliable sources, not our own original research. O3000 (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

{{out}} {{u|Adoring nanny}}, Please read the Wikipedia article Racism in the United States. This talk page is not the place to debate the fringe view that the main problem in the US is racism against whites. And as far as Harvard admission goes, your best chance is if you're legacy, that is, child of alumni or a donor, and the privileged legacy applicants are almost all white. NightHeron (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, please respond to what I actually said, rather than changing it then saying it's wrong, thanks. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Objective3000 already responded to what you wrote about SATs. SATs are not reliable measures of intelligence and can easily be manipulated (by test-prep coaching), as a result of which college and graduate admissions in the US are relying less and less on SATs or any other multiple-choice tests.
 * You ignored what I wrote about the distinction between all the time and some of the time. White privilege indisputably exists because it is present in many situations. Of course, it's not present in all situations, but it's illogical to argue against the existence of white privilege on the grounds that situations can be found where it's not present. NightHeron (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you responded to everything I wrote? Does the fact that I haven't responded to portions of what you wrote give you license to change what I wrote? Adoring nanny (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by accusing me of "changing what I wrote." That makes no sense. I directly quoted your words {{tq|But here in the United States, the overt discrimination is typically against whites}} and pointed out that that's a fringe view. I also suggested that you read the page Racism in the United States. NightHeron (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your statement I allegedly made about "main problem" is straight out made up. I didn't say that. Then you back it up with a selectively edited quote of the "overt" sentence without the "covert" sentence. This selective edit makes it appear that my meaning was something different from what it actually was. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling discrimination against African Americans "covert" and so-called discrimination against whites "overt" -- and saying that overt discrimination is "typically against whites" -- is a way to minimize the former and hugely exaggerate the latter. However you word it, you're expressing a fringe view. Would you call the following "covert" or "overt"? {{tq|Racial disparities have been noted in all levels of the U.S. justice system. According to 2009 congressional testimony from Marc Mauer; while African Americans comprise 13% of the US population and 14% of monthly drug users they are 37% of the people arrested for drug offenses; as well as 56% of the people in state prisons for drug offenses. The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported in March 2010 that in the federal system black offenders receive sentences that are 10% longer than white offenders for the same crimes. A July 2009 report by the Sentencing Project found that two-thirds of the people in the U.S. with life sentences are non-white. According to a new report, African-Americans are three times as likely to be killed by police as white Americans.}} This is from the page Racism in the United States, which I think you would benefit from reading. NightHeron (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Overt is if someone says "we are doing X based on the race of the person." You appear to have started to realize how you misrepresented me, thank you, but you are STILL misrepresenting me on multiple levels, including in your post directly above. Can you see it? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the meaning of overt. According to dictionary.com, overt means {{tq|open to view or knowledge; not concealed or secret}}. The racism against African Americans in the US criminal "justice" system is quite open to view, as the sources cited in the Wikipedia article Racism in the United States make clear. And please don't accuse me of misrepresenting you. I'm simply responding to the things you've been saying in support of a fringe viewpoint on racism. NightHeron (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be delighted to refrain from pointing out that you are misrepresenting me if you would be kind enough to refrain from doing so. However, even after having the issue brought to you repeatedly, you have failed to even acknowledge what you have done, and repeated it yet again directly above by quoting the part about whites without the part about people of East Asian and Indian ancestry, and by applying the adjective "overt" to the wrong party. Did you even notice either one? I further notice that elsewhere on this page, another user said you misrepresented them. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Retain as is for neutrality and truth. White privilege is indeed a fact discovered rather than a concept developed. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Phenomenon not Concept Rather than repeat the same arguments I will simply second the statements/reasoning of {{u|NightHeron}}, {{u|Doug Weller}}, {{u|Grayfell}}, {{u|Objective3000}}, {{u|Aquillion}}, et al. Describing it as a concept seems very WP:FRINGE because it departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views. The use of the word "concept" in the article itself should be looked at and revised appropriately in light of the consensus from this RFC. Since it was mentioned above, the arguments here also should be considered regarding the wording on the Male Privilege article.  // Timothy::  talk  17:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Clarified my position (Thanks {{u|NightHeron}})  // Timothy::  talk


 * Retain treatment as phenomenon - not principally a theory in sociology. William Avery (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, mention both in lead as long-standing consensus and per WP:LEAD. Preferably, restore the long-standing consensus line lost in November 2019 that I think had been the end of para 1 for years.  {{tq|Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept to analyze racism and radicalized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people.}}.   As much of the article is dealing with it as concept, LEAD would say to include that.  And frankly, the position that it’s solely a phenomenon seems silly - things can have more than one aspect, and the existence of scholarly analysis on the concept and the long history of racist propaganda used to justify discrimination thru the years is too big to ignore in LEAD.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Clarification needed. After reading the previous comment, looking at the statement of this RfC, and rereading the article's lead, I see that there's some confusion about what we're voting on.  The retain as is votes are not opposing mention of the concept of white privilege in the lead, since that's there now.  What we're saying is that white privilege is first and foremost a phenomenon that's existed for a long time.  More recently the term has been used by CRT academics and others to broadly frame issues of racism.  We're not voting to remove all mention of the latter from the lead.  The framing of the RfC by User:SprayCanToothpick that the debate is about {{tq|whether or not White Privilege should be referred to as a concept in the lead}} is not an accurate statement of what's being discussed.  The debate concerns the first paragraph of the lead defining the term, not the subsequent paragraphs. NightHeron (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Clarify to prevent the motte and bailey. There are two different definitions of privilege at play here.  First which creates the trivial answer that "white privilege" is a phenomenon.  This definition is akin to a particular benefit, advantage, or favor; a right or immunity enjoyed by some but not others.  The other definition is Social privilege which can be defined as a special, unearned advantage or entitlement, used to one's own benefit or to the detriment of others; often, the groups that benefit from it are unaware of it.  This second definition doesn't define so much a phenomenon, but a theory, or rather a moral framework.  --Kyohyi (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In relation to the possible motte and bailey argument, I believe that it's okay to retreat to the trivial definition by simply deleting a definite article like so: {{tq|White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people}}. After the lead, we would use different perspectives to hash out exactly to what extent white privilege exists, and thereby achieve NPOV. In doing so, we would retain the core nature of white privilege as a phenomenon alleged by theories rather than a theory, while addressing NPOV concerns.Jancarcu (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak concept / third option: I don't think either of these descriptions is quite accurate? The dispute appears to be whether white privilege is a fact or "just a theory". But it's neither: it's an interpretation of a set of facts. The underlying facts its based on are undeniably true but even given those it necessarily can't ever be more than an interpretation. Saying that white people are privileged is just as true as (in fact directly equivalent to) saying that non-white people are marginalized, and often the same people will switch between those interpretive frameworks depending on which is more useful in a given situation. It's pretty directly analogous to describing a glass as half-full vs. half-empty. Loki (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep simply because the difference is hardly even appreciable and that way you can get back to arguing about more important things. Rollo (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, and for reasons that are completely independent from whether white privilege is real or remains prevalent today. The source-based arguments against white privilege being framed as a phenomenon are based on passing references to "theory" and "concept" and fail to recognize that these theories and concepts ultimately present white privilege as an alleged phenomenon. Thus, the theories, by nature, are in relation to an alleged phenomenon of white privilege, real or otherwise. The "Global" and "History" sections discuss incidences of white privilege (or allegations thereof), and not merely theories about it. Presenting white privilege as a concept would therefore be against WP:LEAD and significantly derail the topic of the article. White privilege, by definition, occurs when a whites have more privilege than others in a society. Maybe it's true in relation to our world, maybe it's false in relation to our world, but ultimately it's an alleged phenomenon, not just a theory, and should be described as such.Jancarcu (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Should be stated as a concept or hypothesis Every single concept on Wikipedia from Marxism and Socialism to Christianity and Islam is stated as a concept, not as a fact. The only abstract ideas that are stated factually are rigorous scientific theories, such as Evolution, that have reached the status of scientific facts through rigorous and repeated testing and verification, and support by an overwhelming amount of objective evidence over a long period of time (in case of Evolution, more than a century). The subject of this article is nowhere near that level of scrutiny and support of such. 100.1.15.114 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Response to 100.1.15.114:
 * First Sentence: Apples and oranges, but if the comparison is insisted upon: Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity are not described as concepts that might exist. They are described as real-world belief systems that have created actual societies with tangible benefits for some and disadvantages for others. In the same way, White privilege is a real-world belief system that has created an actual society with tangible benefits for some and disadvantages for others.
 * Second/Third sentence: Begging the question and false.
 *  // Timothy ::  talk  14:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First sentence: That is exactly my point. White privilege is a belief system, thus should be described as such.
 * Second/Third sentence: Please explain how. You cannot just say something is 'false' without giving an explain or providing an argument. 100.1.15.114 (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Should be stated as a concept or hypothesis I think a lot of the argument is over semantics, but it is not in my opinion encylopaedic to present a sociological theory as if it were an undisputed fact. The term white privilege seems to have taken root in the later 20th Century, but the issues surrounding race, prejudice, opportunity and oppression obviously go back to the beginning of modern societies. The issues are certainly real and well documented, but the framing of them as 'white privilege' is fairly modern, obviously very mindful of the African slave trade and the societal injustices faced by minorities in largely white societies. You can frame these issues as 'white privilege', 'minority oppression', 'racism', or any combination of the three, with many more interpretations left out. White privilege is however a fairly modern academic theory which seeks to explain the facts of history through the lens of (of course) white privilege. It's not a phenomena like the electromagnetic spectrum, or the Higgs Field which can be said to exist objectively and independently of the people who researched it. This is why it should not be presented in an encyclopaedia as objective fact. It is a theory, and needs to be presented in those terms.Telenarn (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * That argument for treating White privilege as merely a sociological concept or hypothesis that arose in recent times is inconsistent with the way other analogous phenomena are treated on Wikipedia. For example, the article on Classism treats classism (or class discrimination) as a phenomenon that existed before that term was used to refer to it (according to dictionary.com, the term was first recorded in 1835-45). The article Homophobia treats homophobia as a phenomenon that existed well before the term was first recorded (in 1955-1960, according to dictionary.com). Neither class discrimination nor homophobia is described in those articles as merely a theory, and white privilege should not be either. NightHeron (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * re: "but it is not in my opinion encylopaedic to present a sociological theory as if it were an undisputed fact." = Begging the question
 * The bulk of Telenarn's statement is basically White Privilege is real and documented, but people didn't call it "White Privilege" therefore it's just a theory. This is a non sequitur. Genocide wasn't called Genocide until 1944. This has nothing to do with the reality of Genocide.
 * re: "White privilege is however a fairly modern academic theory" = begging the question.
 * re: "which seeks to explain the facts of history through the lens of (of course) white privilege." False. Critical race theory ≠ White Privilege.
 * re: "It's not a phenomena like the electromagnetic spectrum" - Apples and oranges but just for fun, yes it is. Just like light and heat, it's observed and experienced by millions of people every day.
 * re: "which can be said to exist objectively and independently of the people who researched it" - Irrelevant
 * I'm going to go read the article Headache.  // Timothy ::  talk  00:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}


 * re "The bulk of Telenarn's statement is basically White Privilege is real and documented, but people didn't call it "White Privilege" therefore it's just a theory. This is a non sequitur. Genocide wasn't called Genocide until 1944. This has nothing to do with the reality of Genocide."


 * OK, I'm just going to respond to this straw man as it cuts right to the flaws of your rebuttal. Genocide is a physical act. It is the mass-killing of humans, whatever you call it. White privilege is not a physical act, (or a force of nature, no matter how much you may want it to be). It's simply a theory to explain observed phenomena, such as racism, discrimination and prejudice against non-whites, which was formulated in the latter parts of the Twentieth Century and retrospectively applied. You are of course 100% correct to categorise it as an offshoot of critical race theory, which although slightly pedantic, I have no argument against. You are welcome to describe historic acts of racism and oppression of non-whites as acts of 'white privilege', all it really denotes is that you are an adherent to the sociological theory. A Marxist historian would view those same issues through the lens of class. Which is the right answer? Critical race theory, or Marxist (Class) Theory? The answer is whichever you adhere to, naturally. These theories are a lens through which people look at history, they are not the history itself. The Wikipedia entry for critical race theory makes clear that it is a theoretical framework in the social sciences, so why the big issue of categorising white privilege theory in the same terms when white privilege is merely an offshoot of critical race theory? You don't need to look for analogous Wiki entries when you have the parent make things perfectly clear.Telenarn (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This argument does not make sense no matter how many times it is repeated. The word privilege has a meaning in the English language, {{tq|a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most}}, according to dictionary.com. When someone has a privilege, that's a fact, not a theory. For example, when even middle class white families could have servants and nannies (in apartheid South Africa, in the antebellum South of the US), that was white privilege. When a manager passes over a person of color and hires a less qualified white person for a sales job because he believe that his customers will prefer to talk to a white person, that less qualified white person is a beneficiary of white privilege. When a white acquaintance from Britain who had overstayed her visa was in a bus in California that was stopped and inspected by US Immigration -- but she, as the only non-Latino in the bus, was omitted from the inspection -- she had effective immunity from US immigration law because of her skin color. These are facts, not theories. NightHeron (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's already been established that critical race theory is "a theoretical framework in the social sciences", so calling the theory of white privilege - an offshoot of the theoretical framework of critical race theory - objective fact is palpably not accurate. What more is there to say other than I suggest you follow the link and read up some more about critical race theory. It's a theoretical framework. That isn't in question.Telenarn (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the notion of white privilege is not merely a part of critical race theory. People wrote about the privileges that accrue to white people well before the academic field of critical race theory even existed (W.E.B. Du Bois, Franz Fanon, etc.). People can discuss white privilege without adhering to critical race theory or even knowing what critical race theory is. NightHeron (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * {{u|Telenarn}} "You are welcome to describe historic acts of racism and oppression of non-whites as acts of 'white privilege', all it really denotes is that you are an adherent to the sociological theory." No, all it really denotes is looking at history and the world objectively and honestly. It means not using pseudo-intelectual non-sense and ten-dollar word games to dismiss reality. White privilege is not a theory, it is an objective fact, observable in history and the world around us.  // Timothy ::  talk  04:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No, it is not an objective fact. An objective fact is either a simple, repeatable, and verifiable observation (like "The sky is blue") or a rigorous scientific theory that has been supported by a tremendous amount of evidence and research (like Evolution). Even some highly supported scientific theories in physics (like the Big Bag or General Relativity) are described as 'models' or 'theories' on Wikipedia. White privilege as a concept can be only as valid as critical race theory, or Marxism, of which it is a subset. And, for example, Marxism is, or has been, nowhere near a consensus hypothesis or theory of sociology. 100.1.15.114 (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your opening claim is just repeating what others have asserted and it has been refuted and rejected.
 * re: "critical race theory, or Marxism, of which it is a subset.". Really...?
 * The rest is Apples and oranges and Begging the question
 *  // Timothy ::  talk  04:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * {{u|Timothy}}—white privilege is not an {{tq|"objective fact"}}. Subjectivity comes into play. Depending on who you ask you will be told either that racism is nonexistent or that it is virulent, in a given social setting. Bus stop (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The ability to perceive White privilege as "subjective" is evidence of White Privilege. Individuals who are on the privileged side of the relationship have the luxury of viewing race relations as "subjective" because of the power and control they wield. As you stated previously, White Privilege often comes into play surreptitiously ("acting or doing something clandestinely"). Plausible deniability is usually how people enjoy the privilege without the guilt and the reason this conversation is happening.  // Timothy ::  talk  05:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * So now you're saying that racism is not a fact, but only a theory, because some people {{tq|say that racism is nonexistent}}? Do you believe that the Nazi Holocaust is also just a theory, rather than a fact, because there are Holocaust deniers? NightHeron (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * {{u|NightHeron}}—racism is sometimes, not always, {{tq|"a fact"}}. Bus stop (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

{{out}} This is illogical. Racism is sometimes present, and sometimes it's absent. That doesn't mean that it's only a theory and that its existence is not a fact. The same's true of the Nazi Holocaust. It existed in the 1930s-40s and not later; it existed in Europe and not outside Europe. That doesn't mean that it is only a theory and its existence is not a fact. NightHeron (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * So, you're saying white privilege is not a sociological concept, {{u|NightHeron}}? This article is part of WikiProject Sociology. I think that suggests we may be addressing a sociological concept. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying that white privilege is first and foremost a phenomenon that indisputably exists. Later on, it also emerged as a concept in sociology, that is, certain theories were developed around the phenomenon. NightHeron (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "White privilege" is not a ubiquitous fact of life. In some times and places "white privilege" does not exist. In other times and places reasonable people can disagree as to whether the referred-to phenomenon exists or not. "White privilege" is associated with the field of study of sociology. That is why the article is in WikiProject Sociology. This is an article about the "sociological concept" of white privilege. Our lede should be using the term "sociological concept". Bus stop (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be ubiquitous to be fact. And, perhaps it shouldn't be in WikiProject Sociology. O3000 (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't this article be in WikiProject Sociology? Sociology studies "patterns of social relationships, social interaction and culture of everyday life." Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And Sociology of race and ethnic relations is in WikiProject Sociology to cover the sociological aspects. O3000 (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * White privilege is only sometimes applicable therefore we should characterize it as a sociological concept. Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Where's the logic in that? The terms domestic violence, cyberbullying, racism etc. all refer to phenomena that are only sometimes present. The terms are only sometimes applicable. That doesn't mean that they're only sociological concepts. It doesn't mean that they're not phenomena that indisputably exist. NightHeron (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * White privilege tells you in the first sentence "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. You don't find language like the underlined language at articles like Domestic violence or Cyberbullying. This article addresses the sociological concept of the debatable presence of racism in settings that are ostensibly equitable. The implication of "white privilege" is that the racism is covert rather than overt. Domestic violence and cyberbullying are not implied. Rather the presence of these problems is evidence-based. There is a grey area between that which is suspected to exist and that which is known to exist, and it would be almost pointless to argue where that line is found. The term "white privilege" implies discrimination against black people. Terms like "domestic violence" and "cyberbullying" are used when the presence of those problems is a certainty that cannot be debated. Bus stop (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

{{out}} In all three cases there are many situations where there's disagreement whether or not the term applies. Should verbal abuse be called domestic violence? Should uncivil conduct against a newbie on wikipedia be called cyberbullying? Should not being harassed by the police be called white privilege? Many people would say No in all three cases, and others would say Yes. On the other hand, in each case there are situations where the term indisputably applies, where it cannot be debated. Earlier on this talk page I and others have given concrete examples of incidents or situations to which the term white privilege applies, if one uses the standard dictionary definition of privilege. If you want, I'll list a few of them. That's reality, not a "theory." All three terms describe something that unfortunately really exists. NightHeron (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * White privilege should be referred to as a sociological concept. White privilege is an idea. Describe white privilege as a sociological concept, which clearly it is. Objectivity comes into play when examining a theory such as gravity but racial relations are highly subjective. The article is even saying "particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances". How does "white privilege" come into play—by magic? "White privilege" comes into play, if it comes into play, by surreptitious means. Do we have to concern ourselves with the surreptitious factors applicable to gravity? Of course not. As an encyclopedia our burden is to completely and appropriately categorize a term. The term that is the title of the article is a sociological concept, and I think we should identify it as such. Bus stop (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine where Bus stop and the above IP-editor got the notion that outside of the sciences there are no facts, but only theories. That there is economic inequality is a fact, not a theory. That domestic violence is a big problem in many parts of the world is also a fact, not a theory. Perusing Wikipedia, one could probably find a few more million examples of facts that exist that are not scientific facts. That in many situations some people get privileges because of being white is also a fact. What {{tq|surreptitious factors}} has to do with the subject is really obscure. Is Bus stop referring to the history of slavery and colonialism as surreptitious factors? Hard to tell. NightHeron (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * // agree {{u|NightHeron}}  // Timothy ::  talk  04:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * But of course, {{u|NightHeron}}, I never said that {{tq|"outside of the sciences there are no facts"}}. Bus stop (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * re {{u|Bus stop}} points:
 * "which clearly it is." Not clear to many people, especially the people that are not on the privileged side of the relationship.
 * re: Gravity comparison = Apples and oranges
 * "racial relations are highly subjective." The ability to perceive race relations as "subjective" is evidence of White Privilege. Individuals who are on the privileged side of the relationship have the luxury of viewing race relations as "subjective" because of the power and control they wield.
 * "The article is even saying "particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances"." That White privilege can be affected by environmental factors is not an arguement against its existence.
 * "by surreptitious means." - yes, White Privilege often comes into play surreptitiously ("acting or doing something clandestinely"). Plausable deniability is usually how people enjoy the privilege without the guilt and the reason this conversation is happening.
 * Final sentence = Begging the question
 * <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  04:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}
 * Retain as is: The article does not require filler words such as "sociological concept" and so on. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

There is currently an ANI thread related to this article
There is currently a discussion at ANI relating to this article.See here.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Problematic edit claiming white privilege originated in the US
I reverted this edit because (1) white privilege is a phenomenon, not merely a "concept" or "theory," and (2) as a phenomenon I don't believe it originated in the US. European colonizers benefited from it before the US existed, I would think. If you want to state that white privilege originated in the US or that academic writing about white privilege originated in the US, that needs a source. NightHeron (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I guess this is just going to go on forever, but "white privilege" is a concept in Critical Race Theory. The constant POV pushing that CRT concepts are reality is not appropriate. It undermines Wikipedia's credibility. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure it's a concept. Racism is a concept. Is there actual racism in the real world? Doug Weller  talk 17:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thuc's attempts to narrow and constrain the scope of this article have been rejected rather decisivley in lenghty talk page discussions. I don't see any reason to reopen or validate that effort in the absence of probative new arguments or information. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Existence is a concept. Still trying to figure out if it's real. If it is, so is white privilege. O3000 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that you guys are comparing a Critical Race Theory concept to the existence of racism, or to existence of existence itself, just makes it clear how futile it is to try to discuss this issue. This page is a political manifesto, not an entry in an encyclopedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your two edits in this thread are not furthering your position. O3000 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Could not agree more with Thucy. White Privilege is a concept within CRT in just as much as Capital & Labor is a concept within Marxism. Again, suggesting White Privilege ist just as real as existence itself is just spewy and undermines the theory of CRT (which has credible point imo) itself. If I take a look at Wiki's page about Capitalism, there is huge swath of critism to be found on the page (and justifiably so) and I just do not see that here. --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuedex (talk • contribs) 11:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC) The article is very biased and makes blanket factual claims about relationships between races which are not adequately supported by empirical studies. Any claim of evidence-based reasoning is anecdotal and generalizes the experiences of some into a claim about reality for all. There are countless counter-examples one can find in the published media which could equally be generalized using exactly the same cherry-picked approach into a direct criticism of this concept. The article needs to be unlocked and open to full critique instead of being presented as an unquestionable doctrine. I would even suggest that the idea of white privilege seeks to apply a racial profile to white people in general that is potentially damaging to society as a whole by seeking to blame a very specific group of people for any problem experienced by people of color, thereby discouraging introspection on the part of the alleged victims (people of color) and encouraging a sense of guilt in those who had no say in their choice of skin color, whilst also deterring any further collaboration between people of different races on seeking to find solutions that may not be due to race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.202.222 (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"Proponents have noted that"
Proponents have noted that in the lead has two problems: (1) proponent means someone who has proposed something, and this doesn't seem to fit; and (2) "noted that" should be avoided, per WP:SAID. I'm changing it to "Some have commented that." NightHeron (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020
Change this: “Sociologists in the American Mosaic Project at the University of Minnesota reported THAT widespread belief in the United States that "prejudice and discrimination [in favor of whites] create a form of white privilege."

To this: “Sociologists in the American Mosaic Project at the University of Minnesota reported THE widespread belief in the United States that "prejudice and discrimination [in favor of whites] create a form of white privilege." 2601:140:9080:2040:2858:CD14:7FFE:239A (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Thanks. I have rephrased the paragraph. 2003 was 17 years ago, which seems important, so I rephrased it to more clearly indicate the time frame. It's still kind of awkward though. Grayfell (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)