Talk:White privilege/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

White Privilege as ad hominem attack

Critics have commented that the theoretical framework of “white privilege’ can be too easily deployed rhetorically to dismiss arguments of persons based on features of their personhood— ad hominem arguments. Writing in the Harvard Political Review, Nishin Nathwani argued: “The rhetoric of privilege has become a means to divert attention away from the substance of arguments to their immediate origin.”. Taonga Leslie argued: “A little awareness of the privileges we are allotted by society is a good thing. It helps us to empathize with others who have not shared our advantages. However, when left uncontrolled, awareness of our privilege can quickly transform into a new form of prejudice. Instead of using privilege as a tool to understand different perspectives, too often we use it to silence and shame our opponents into submission.” They note that discussion on privilege has become a powerful tool to silence certain voices entirely. and those who question it are delegitimized as backwards, privileged bigots whose opinions should be at best ignored and at worst banned.

Moreover they claim that white privilege has been deployed as an insult, encapsulated in the popular use of the term “Check your privilege”. Writing in Time Magazine, Tal Fortgang stated: “There is a phrase that floats around college campuses, Princeton being no exception, that threatens to strike down opinions without regard for their merits, but rather solely on the basis of the person that voiced them. “Check your privilege,” the saying goes, and I have been reprimanded by it several times this year.”

In her book, The Perils of ‘Privilege’: Why Injustice Can’t Be Solved by Accusing Others of Advantage, Phoebe Maltz Bovy argues privilege has become “the word and concept of our age . . . our era’s number one insult.” whose “…role as an aide in online bullying exceeds its utility as a theoretical framework.”

References

Please leave comments on this new section below. If you have issues with the RS please explain why. ThanksKeith Johnston (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth you undid this edit stating that everyone was opposed to these edits. This is not the case. The debate above was regarding a separate critique section. There was no specific discussion regarding this specific paragraph or its RS. If you object to these specific edits please make your arguments here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 12:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel like this sort of behaviour is the definition of WP:CIVILPOV. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem arguments. I am concerned that it will discourage others from focusing on the matters at hand - any objections to the paragraph and associated RS. I am interested in your arguments on the RS.Keith Johnston (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please stop already. This is a twist on what was discussed and rejected above. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree for the reasons stated above. I concede there were general objections to a Criticism section, but not specific objections to these criticism. Can you make specific objections to this criticism? Keith Johnston (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

There were no objections raised above when a solar eclipse darkened the United States. I suppose that means you can add whatever tripe you'd like to the article on Monday, when a solar eclipse will darken the United States because "there were no specific objections to that"? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you make specific objections to this criticism?Keith Johnston (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC) I will give this another day and unless there are objections then I will re-post this section Keith Johnston (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The repeated criticism about reliable sources vs. blogs, undergrad publications, etc. from the RfC is just as applicable here. I don't think it's productive to expect people to rehash the same arguments over and over again when the underlying issue is the same. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, this is precisely my point, that the criticism of the principle of a criticism section was not specifically related to the paragraphs I have submitted. As you your specific points, there are no blogs listed as RS. If you think the Harvard Political Review is not RS then we can debate and contextualise. Is that what you think? Presumably you are not claiming Time, The Federalist or the Washington Post are not RS, or are you?Keith Johnston (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The Federalist is not a reliable source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Before getting into the Federalist, are there any of the other RS that you object to? Keith Johnston (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of further commentary I will shorten the proposed section, contextualised the undergraduate publication and removed the Federalist source since we can debate if its RS later.Keith Johnston (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Please stop trying to bully this material, which has been repeatedly rejected, into the article or you may find yourself at WP:AE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz Thanks, can you make specific objections to this criticism? If you cannot but insist on reverting my edits then I suggest we take this to arbitrationKeith Johnston (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think arbitration is appropriate, and a request is likely to be declined, but feel free to pursue another means of dispute resolution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer to discuss the issues you have with the RS and resolve it here.Keith Johnston (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of a response I suggest we initiate a third opinion request.Keith Johnston (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:3PO is a valid option when two editors are in disagreement. Please review this section of the talk page and the article's history. More than one editor is opposed to your proposed addition, so 3PO isn't appropriate. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with MShabbaz. Just like all previous ones, most recent Rfc that KJ himself requested revealed overwhelming opposition to separate criticism sections, in reaction to which he keeps bludgeoning talk page with fistfuls of rhetorical spaghetti in hopes some will stick. At this point it seems straightforward case of IDONTLIKE. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

A balanced presentation of this rhetorical issue takes up one paragraph at Privilege (social inequality). Fortgang's critique appears with McIntosh's response. That's about all that's WP:DUE, in my opinion. Pulling four or five college newspaper editorials into a wall of text, however, gives WP:UNDUE weight to this concern. Indeed, some of the critics aren't critiquing the concept at all, but "its rhetorical use." We don't have a section in Racism about how being called a racist makes some people feel bad, and how some people are called racists unfairly, blah blah. Now if Wikipedia were to create a balanced article on the rhetoric of privilege, say by creating a Check your privilege page (currently redirects to Privilege (social inequality)), a bit more of these rhetorical use concerns might be germane. But still, upgrade your sources and create a dialogue of multiple viewpoints that is representative of the Reliable Sources that address the issue.--Carwil (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid its impossible to conduct a discussion on this (or any topic in wikiepdia) unless editors are willing to engage with the RS. We need to asses the quality of each RS. I agree with @Carwil that a section on the application of white privilege would be useful, but given the history of editors undoing changes without being willing to discuss the RS, I can come to no other conclusion that this would be a waste of my time. Keith Johnston (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

For the record here are links to further RS critical of white privilege:

The Atlantic: "if a white person is constantly attesting to their privilege, constantly attesting that they still have things to learn, and not ever specifying what more it is that they have to learn, the idea that is somehow constructive, I suggest that be reexamined." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/a-columbia-professors-critique-of-campus-politics/532335/

The Walrus https://thewalrus.ca/why-checking-your-privilege-doesnt-work/ PHOEBE MALTZ BOVY "This implicit, but implausible, step after the awareness epiphany is, at its essence, my issue with “privilege.” Constantly reminding everyone of where they fall . . . why would such candor lead to empathy? Why wouldn’t a society where systemic injustices are front and center in everyone’s mind at all times only serve to make interactions between men and women, blacks and whites, rich and poor, that much more fraught, inhibiting the development of everyday social and professional bonds?"

Parul Sehgal, New York Times Magazine: “the shine has come off this hardy, once-helpful word. It looks a little worn, a bit blunted, as if it has been taken to too many fights.” https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/magazine/how-privilege-became-a-provocation.html

Berkeley senior Efe Atli offers the following damning critique, in a Daily Cal op-ed (“Checking privilege serves to reinforce it”) from January 2016: The number[s] don’t lie. Three decades of checking privilege directly correlate with an astronomical rise in income inequality. The more inequality we have, the more privilege gets checked by more privileged people, and the more the privileged feel pleasure (and power) in being aware of their privilege and so, grow in power. http://www.dailycal.org/2016/01/22/checking-privilege-serves-to-reinforce-it/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfH8IG7Awk0 Identity politics and the Marxist lie of white privilege — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 11:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Quilette magazine Spencer Case: A close look at the notion of white privilege casts doubt on whether the racial disparities that currently exist within the U.S. constitute any such thing. http://quillette.com/2017/06/24/skepticism-white-privilege/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 11:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

https://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2012/04/white-privilege/256478/ In short--you need to know that I was privileged. I can run you all kinds of stats on the racial wealth gap and will gladly discuss its origins. But you can't really buy two parents like I had. White Privilege by TA-NEHISI COATES — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

DAVID FRENCH, National Review. Discussion of “white privilege” has gone from interesting and thoughtful to stupid and malicious at the speed of social justice. There is a fascinating debate to be had about the nature of “privilege” in America — including who has real privilege and how it shapes our nation — but we’re definitely not having it. Instead, we get presumptions, paranoia, shout-downs, and power plays. There’s no intent to persuade, only bully and shame. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444191/racial-poison-white-privilege Keith Johnston (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Asked to look at article

First I have no dog in the fight. I'm Hawaiian with its unique multi-ethnic population and low levels of overt racism IMO. I'm hapa or mixed although I appear more Caucasian than anything else. I'm English, Scandinavian, Hispanic, Black or African, and Jewish. It's common here to ask about ancestry on introduction and never considered racist to do so.

So here's some observations.

1. Some appear entrenched in their opinions. 2. There is no good peer reviewed scientific studies to shed light on the theory I noticed. 3. Many are using opinion pieces not backed by sound studies as reference material. They are opinion pieces. Being published in newspapers. magazines, etc means little. Sound peer reviewed studies published in reputable journals is what should be sought. 4. White privilege seems ill defined. You can't debate well whats defined poorly and that appears based on opinion often biased. 5. Using the idea 'most' feel this way is an unscientific reason to shut down debate because numbers determine 'facts'. 6. Repeatedly deleting talk comments is unacceptable as is demonizing fellow editors. 7. The concept is a theory and this needs to be emphasized.

Suggestions:

1. I'd freeze the article for now. 2. I would not delete it as the topic exists. 3. The article needs to be rewritten from a neutral standpoint with input from all perspectives. All need to remember Wiki is neutral and this is theory. 4. The use of personal opinions is fine as long as that fact is noted. If there are no hard studies on the topic this should be noted in the intro. 5. A timeline or history of apparent/perceived advantages of being white is fine as most, even without hard studies, agree this is true. I would balance this with apparent erosion of benefits and inclusion of non-whites. I think this will be difficult to do esp staying neutral but it can be done.

That's a start and all can go from there. I'd encourage those with differing views to bend over backward to make this work.

Hope this helps and of course no one needs to follow it. Keep in mind one or a few can destroy debate and kill the article.

Good luckJobberone (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Jobberone

Propaganda Term

It should be clearly note that "White Privilege" is a deceptive propaganda term with a conspiracy theory as a subtext. --105.11.103.82 (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be noted unless reliable sources say so. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

When one is used to privilege equality seems like oppression. Carptrash (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash Do reliable sources say so? Either way, is your reply in keeping with Wikipedia:TPG? If not, please rectify. Scriblerian1 (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Critique- -white privilege as white guilt etc

I have added critique. Please discuss any issues with these additions here. Ideally please address any issues you have with the RS. Keith Johnston (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop. Trawling the internet every month for a few opinion columns that have bad things to say about "white privilege", adding them to this article, then challenging other editors to describe their specific objections to that month's sources is a waste of everybody's time. You've started multiple discussions, including an RfC. At this point, you're merely being tendentious and disruptive. Please stop yourself or I will take action to stop you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz:For the purpose of clarity, would you list any specific inclusion/exclusionary criteria beyond Wikipedia's general standards regarding validity for sources used in this article? Your issue does not seem to address source relevancy so much as source validity; many technically "non-opinion" articles or research contain opinions, sometimes as a central crux of the author's work; you can find outright statements to this effect or implications of it in abstracts, discussion/conclusion sections (or if relevant, the hypothesis itself), and so on. Additionally, perhaps consider Wikipedia:ULTIMATUM; reviewing the discussion of editors regarding new sources is a valuable thing. Scriblerian1 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Scriblerian1: Instead of citing an essay, I cited a guideline (WP:Disruptive editing) that Keith Johnston was violating. If you care to discuss the subject, I recommend you read the multiple talk page discussions and RfCs that Johnston started in the past six months. There is no requirement that Wikipedia editors respond to every inquiry, no matter how repetitive. You should also be aware that discretionary sanctions apply to this article, and behave appropriately. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 09:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

MShabazz Yes, I am aware that was a guideline. I interjected here because it was the section for the subject I was discussing. I'll take it on faith that you only mentioned the discretionary sanctions on this article/"behave appropriately" as an attempt to answer my inquiry about additional inclusion/exclusionary criteria. In that case, thank you for your time. Scriblerian1 (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, thanks, could you explain your objections to the RS? Removing well sourced RS without explanation is not acceptable editing practice. Keith Johnston (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree this is tendentious. This edit had the same big, big problems with context and neutrality as the previous attempts. I could get more specific, but why? I've already explained this to you before, and I'm not the only one. If the last few times this came up is any indicator, asking us to repeated the same reasons is not going to be productive if you're not willing to listening to what we're saying, instead of what you think we're saying. Grayfell (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell thanks

That is incorrect, you have not explained objections to these RS. These (listed below) include articles published by The Atlantic, Time Magazine, The Washington Post and The New York Times. These are generally considered excellent RS, so I am unclear as to the nature of your objections.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/a-columbia-professors-critique-of-campus-politics/532335/

http://time.com/85933/why-ill-never-apologize-for-my-white-male-privilege/?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/03/23/the-last-thing-on-privilege-youll-ever-need-to-read/?utm_term=.b690678fce4f

https://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2012/04/white-privilege/256478/

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/magazine/how-privilege-became-a-provocation.html

The reason I am asking you to explain is that you support deleting the content. To do this you must give reasons. I look forward to reading your specific objections to this RS. Keith Johnston (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You do not get to demand that we respond to your proposals in such a limited, pednatic way, and using superficially civil language doesn't make this less demanding. I have explained the problem with this approach, back in July, and the additions you made are still based on this deeply flawed, non-neutral approach. You cannot ignore past discussions. As Malik Shabazz says, you are intentionally trawling for any remotely negative comment, stripping it of all surrounding context, and trying to use it as a justification for a euphemistically-named WP:CSECTION. Asking us to go through this line-by-line is ignoring the substance of our comments and complaints about your edits. Instead you would have us re-litigate the same tired points over and over. No thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell Thanks. I note once again that you are unwilling to engage on a discussion on these RS. This is one of the primary purposes of editorial discussions on wikipedia. Unless you can engage with the RS, I can only conclude that you are unable to justify your approach so you are rejecting these edits for other reasons which fall outside of wikipedia's guidelines. I'm afraid your attempts to justify your actions by referring to my "deeply flawed, non-neutral approach" are meaningless unless you can justify them with reference to the RS under debate. Keith Johnston (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Keith Johnston, you misunderstand Wikipedia policy. The article about the earth doesn't include the argument that the earth is flat, and editors at Talk:Earth do not have to refute every source that can be prodiced that says it is. You initiated an open call for comments. More than 15 editors came here, some of whom had never edited this article or its talk page before, and the overwhelming consensus rejected your argument. We don't have to refute every source you can produce every month. You are being tendentious and disruptive. Please stop. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Ta-Nehesi Coates article in The Atlantic doesn't criticize the term as such. He states how he is repulsed by vague use of the term outside of academia. Yet you speciously tried to use that as a reference for his regarding the term itself as "too broad a brush". You do not get to a repeatedly attempt such dishonesty. William Avery (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

When an editor with less than 500 edits, a third of which are related to this topic, begins lecturing multiple experienced editors on the "the primary purposes of editorial discussions on wikipedia", it's a sign that something has gone wrong. Cherry-picking from sources is not appropriate, and bludgeoning the process to include such cherry-picking is a precursor to blocks or other restrictions. That's not even necessarily the only problem with these edits, but it's plenty. This is enough of an engagement in discussing sources to reject these changes, and anything further is humoring disruptive behavior to no real benefit. Keith Johnston, if you are serious about contributing to this article, and to Wikipedia in general, you need to slow down and read what we are telling you instead of WP:WIKILAWYERing against overwhelming consensus. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@William Avery thanks for engaging in constructive debate about the RS. I note @grayfell and @MShabazz are unable to engage in this debate and are engaged in baiting and misdirection.

@William Avery on your substantive point I stand by my original summary:

Black writer Ta-Nehesi Coates believes the use of the term white privilege is too broad brush which “often breaks down in the face of actual individuals” and that having a supportive family was more important privilege than racial differences. “In short--you need to know that I was privileged. I can run you all kinds of stats on the racial wealth gap and will gladly discuss its origins. But you can't really buy two parents like I had.”

I would reference these paragraphs in the article to substantiate my summary: "my identity isn't founded on the losing end of "white privilege." I understand the use of that term for social scientists and perhaps literature critics. But I generally find it most powerful and most illuminating when linked to an actual specific privilege--not fearing sexual violence, not weighing one's death against the labor of birthing, living in a neighborhood bracketed off by housing covenants, not having to compete for certain jobs etc. In its most general invocation, I'm often repulsed because I think these sorts of questions often break down in the face of actual individuals."

The world of the individual--and often the black individual--is the space where I write. It is true that I can tell you how racism--indirectly and directly--affected my life. But you should also know that I truly believe that I had the best pair of parents in the world, that I had six brothers and sisters (sometimes more) who took care of me. That my mother taught me to read when I was four, that my father put me to work when I was six. That my brother Malik taught me D&D when I was seven, that my brother Big Bill fed me hip-hop from the time I was eight till this very day. That my house was filled with books which I was given the privilege to dive in and out of. That my father published and printed books which gave a sense of Do For Self.

...In short--you need to know that I was privileged. I can run you all kinds of stats on the racial wealth gap and will gladly discuss its origins. But you can't really buy two parents like I had. Money can buy experience and exposure--but it can't make you want those things. It can't make your parents curious about the world. It can't make them moral, compassionate and caring. It can't make them love their children. As I have moved on up, in that old Jeffersonian sense, I have seen families who allegedly were more privileged. But ultimately I find merit in who they are as humans. I am unconvinced that money trumps all of their flaws"

Feel free to suggest an alternative summary. Keith Johnston (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

References

For avoidance of doubt: I am entirely in agreement with the others who have commented, and you are in a minority of one. William Avery (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on White privilege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150228013350/http://acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/4acrawsa614.pdf to http://www.acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/4acrawsa614.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409210021/http://acrawsa.org.au/ejournal/?id=1 to http://www.acrawsa.org.au/ejournal/?id=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929170523/http://www.tolerance.org/teach/activities/activity.jsp?ar=718 to http://www.tolerance.org/teach/activities/activity.jsp?ar=718

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on White privilege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130410063153/http://acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/98SuvendriniPerera.pdf to http://www.acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/98SuvendriniPerera.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409210033/http://acrawsa.org.au/ejournal/?id=27 to http://www.acrawsa.org.au/ejournal/?id=27
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409210237/http://acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/3acrawsa613.pdf to http://www.acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/3acrawsa613.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409210111/http://acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/177CRWS201281Casey.pdf to http://www.acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/177CRWS201281Casey.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409210015/http://acrawsa.org.au/ejournal/?id=54 to http://www.acrawsa.org.au/ejournal/?id=54
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130410062923/http://acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/45acrawsa518.pdf to http://www.acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/45acrawsa518.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150228013434/http://acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/44acrawsa517.pdf to http://www.acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/44acrawsa517.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409210109/http://acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/editorials/54CRWSRandell-Moon2012.pdf to http://www.acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/editorials/54CRWSRandell-Moon2012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409210015/http://acrawsa.org.au/ejournal/?id=54 to http://www.acrawsa.org.au/ejournal/?id=54
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130410063014/http://acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/64SuvendriniPerera.pdf to http://www.acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/64SuvendriniPerera.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409210028/http://acrawsa.org.au/ejournal/?id=23 to http://www.acrawsa.org.au/ejournal/?id=23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

In first sentence, add adjective "controversial" before the word "term" with link to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeJuriste (talk • contribs)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

add adjective "controversial" before noun "term" in first sentence of the entry with link to Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversydailycaller.com/2018le-whiteness-poster/

alternatively flag page as controversial

 Not done: Please see WP:LABEL. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. The concept and the way it is taught is controversial, largely supported by leftists and left leaning liberals, critiqued by centrists and rejected by conservatives. This link to a reliable source, Pew research, backs up the idea that the concept is controversial. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/28/views-about-whether-whites-benefit-from-societal-advantages-split-sharply-along-racial-and-partisan-lines/ Keith Johnston (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

But public opinion polls are not dispositive of whether or not something is "controversial" among reliable sources. We do not call global warming "controversial" even though it remains politically controversial in some countries; its existence and occurrence is a scientific fact supported by an overwhelming body of relevant science. That some people may criticize the concept of "white privilege" does not mean we label that concept "controversial" on Wikipedia when it is not apparently controversial within its field. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point, well made. Do you have any further guidance on how wikipedia defines 'controversial'?Keith Johnston (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Critique of white privilege

I have found some further critique which is helpful if someone thinks they are suitable to balance the almost entirely uncritical propaganda that is the current article.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/check-your-white-privilege_us_5a130e2de4b010527d677f08 But a significant question facing progressives today is whether the use of the term “white privilege” helps or hurts building the kind of solidarity needed to promote racial justice and reverse runaway inequality.

The danger is that “white privilege” still comes across as an accusation, whether it is meant that way or not. It suggests that you as a white person are harboring racism deep within you, a kind of original sin. Because of your white skin, the power structures consider you normal. You get the benefit of the doubt while others do not because you are born into society’s white in-crowd.

This kind of dialogue can also generate defensiveness.

http://quillette.com/2018/01/27/walking-tightrope-chaos-order-interview-jordan-b-peterson/ One of the ways that left-wing ideologues seem to be winning is through Wikipedia. If you go to the “White Privilege” page you will find that it’s effectively postmodern propaganda…

It is a very intelligent point of entry for someone who is activist-minded. Why the hell wouldn’t you go on Wikipedia and gerrymander the contents? You have an ethical duty to do so.

And one of the ways this is entrenched is that the sources that underpin these misleading Wikipedia pages are professors who are peer reviewed…

Ha! Peer-reviewed…that’s such a lie! First of all, 80 percent of humanities papers are not cited once. That’s fraud! That’s what that is, right. 80 percent, that’s a very bad number. “Peer-reviewed” means you have conjured up a specialty journal that only you and your friends publish in. You each review your own publications. Then you go the library, and say “You have to buy this.” And the library says, “Because you said so we have to buy it, because that’s our mandate.” And the publisher says, “Oh good because we will sell it to the libraries at a price so inflated that the mere fact that no-one ever reads it is irrelevant.” Right, and so then the libraries buy it. And that’s your “peer-review”.

http://quillette.com/2018/01/23/privilege-checking-privilege-checkers/ Many of today’s privilege-conscious view white people and the structures of Western societies as irredeemably evil. To them, Western democratic nations are bastions of racist and sexist oppression operating under the guise of “progress.” To question the attitudes and practices of other cultures is racist, but to condemn Western society is a moral obligation.

Keith Johnston (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This is unacceptably sloppy. Start a sandbox if you want a place to dump content for future reference. It's not even obvious where your comments end and the quotes begin. To avoid copyright issues, all direct quotations should have clear attribution. If you want to actually explain how to improve this article, do so, but these monthly summaries of your personal google news alerts are neither productive, nor clever. These sources are pretty bad, and especially for any sort of criticism section, which we've already been over so many times. Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Can't tell if this is IDHT or CIR vis-a-vis WP:RS... EvergreenFir (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Grayfell, can you substantiate your claim that the are sources bad?

This source is Quillette (which is an RS), and the author is a professor of psychology. http://quillette.com/2018/01/27/walking-tightrope-chaos-order-interview-jordan-b-peterson/ Happy to add the quote marks to help you understand it:

"If you go to the “White Privilege” page you will find that it’s effectively postmodern propaganda…It is a very intelligent point of entry for someone who is activist-minded. Why the hell wouldn’t you go on Wikipedia and gerrymander the contents? You have an ethical duty to do so.

And one of the ways this is entrenched is that the sources that underpin these misleading Wikipedia pages are professors who are peer reviewed…

Peer-reviewed…that’s such a lie! First of all, 80 percent of humanities papers are not cited once. That’s fraud! That’s what that is, right. 80 percent, that’s a very bad number. “Peer-reviewed” means you have conjured up a specialty journal that only you and your friends publish in. You each review your own publications. Then you go the library, and say “You have to buy this.” And the library says, “Because you said so we have to buy it, because that’s our mandate.” And the publisher says, “Oh good because we will sell it to the libraries at a price so inflated that the mere fact that no-one ever reads it is irrelevant.” Right, and so then the libraries buy it. And that’s your “peer-review”."

I predict you will be unable to question the legitimacy of the RS, the source or the author. The reason for this is because you cannot.Keith Johnston (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how this is not an opinion piece? EvergreenFir (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how this - White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, Peggy McIntosh - is not an opinion piece? The working paper its based on is actually subtitled "A Personal Account".

http://www.ywca.org/atf/cf/%7B6EDE3711-6615-4DDD-B12A-F9E0A781AE81%7D/White%20Privilege%20Unpacking%20the%20Invisible%20Knapsack.pdf

McIntosh’s entire piece is littered with unscientific observations that are nothing more than opinion:

For example, "As far as I can tell..."

"It seems to me that..."

"I *think* [ie not, "I can demonstrate that"] whites are carefully taught..."

Its politically-driven pseudo-science. Unfortunately most of the 'editors' on this page will simply not reflect the validity of academics who question the theory and its underlying methodology.

And if you want Professors, I have already provided references above to devastating and fundamental criticism from academics. These include:

Professors Daniel Furber & Susan Sherry, Professor John McWhorter and Professor Eric Arnesan.

Arnesan in particular is devastating: "whiteness scholars' extreme and essentialist formulations make their categories and contributions analytically quite useless.[27]. In Whiteness and the Historians’ Imagination: Arnesan criticises scholars for "arbitrary and inconsistent definitions of core concepts...offering little concrete evidence to support many of their arguments, these works often take creative liberties with the evidence they do have…Too much of the historical scholarship on whiteness has disregarded scholarly standards, employed sloppy methodology, generated new buzzwords and jargon, and, at times, produced an erroneous history."

So the idea that those 'editors' are only preventing critical edits because its not from Professors is demonstrably untrue. Neither will 'editors' incorporate mainstream conservative criticism from outside the academy from excellent RS, e,g The Atlantic. But these self-same 'editors' will place opinion pieces from the left prominently, such as Gina Crosley-Corcoran (who describes herself as a former-rocker-chick-turned-mom, a blogger, and a busy birth worker.) in the Huffington Post. Why allow Gina and deny Conor Friedersdorf (a well respected journalist) in the Atlantic? Its only because Gina is uncritical while Conor is not. So don't tell me its about the quality of the RS, and its not fact v opinion.

This entire page - the lede in particular - is an embarrassment to those excellent editors of Wikipedia who work hard together to create politically balanced pieces which incorporate left wing, centrist and conservative perspectives. Wikipedia is not your left wing tool to cherry pick opinions and gerrymander contents.Keith Johnston (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm losing good faith here if you're seriously calling McIntosh's writing an "opinion piece" (and making banal snark statements about "editors"). There's a difference between opinion pieces in magazines/newspapers and scholarly writing. Scholarly writings are not necessarily research articles presenting data. This "politically-driven pseudo-science" is widely used to illustrate a concept and thus is appropriate in an article about that concept. Similarly with Crosley-Corcoran's viral article. Critiques from Arnesan and other scholars are fine. But that's not what you offered in this post.

It is disingenuous to suggest this article lacks scholarly sources. We have 144 sources on the article, many (most?) of which are scholarly. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I've already explained to Keith Johnston, multiple times, why I think this entire approach is childish petty nonsense, and many other people have also at the RFC etc. Keith Johnston's responses seem to be based on assumptions of what I would be trying to say if I were a straw-man SJW, while pretty much totally ignoring what I'm actually saying. Here's a slightly different approach, one last time before this goes to some noticeboard:

As before, there is no actual suggestion for improving the article. Nobody is denying that Peterson has commented on the existence of the term white privilege, but it's not obvious what he's saying, why it matters, or why it belongs in this or any other article. We do not include every single passing mention from any and all people with terminal degrees. Listing quotefarms from random sources is not suggesting any real action, instead it's complaining. Ironically, this is something Peterson specifically chides in that interview. In the interview, Peterson isn't the person who brought-up privilege and he doesn't seem to share the common academic definition of the term "white privilege", but even then he's not denying that it exists, or that it's a useful concept in some contexts: "...the answer to that that is, partly!" He's saying that even though white privilege exists, and it a 'polluting' factor, we should ignore it because he doesn't like the alternatives. Since it's such a trivial, passing point in a longer interview, the effort that would be needed to summarize this neutrally would be a waste of time. Trying to warp this discussion into another argument over whether or not Peterson is, in fact, a real psychologist is totally, comically missing the point. The copy/pasted quote is cherry-picking to highlight a tangential mention that happens to include relevant words. There isn't enough to work with here, and including the quote as-is would be totally, unacceptably undue and non-neutral.

Any future proposals should include actionable changes. The concept of a CSECTION has been rejected by a concensus of the community, obviously, so this would have to be included organically in the article. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell Thanks I accept your suggestion.

I propose to add the following:

"Conor Friedersdorf objects to privilege theory by arguing that it replaces color-blindness with a “hyper-emphasis on everyone's racial or ethnic background, including artificially constructed majoritarian whiteness” and that such practice might be counter-productive noting: “nothing in U.S. history leads me to believe that encouraging people to regard whiteness as the core of their identity will end well."

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/the-limits-of-talking-about-privilege/386021/

If you object because this is an opinion piece then, by the same principle, we must also call into question the opinions pieces referenced in this article from The New Yorker, The Guardian, and The Huffington Post. Otherwise it seems reasonable only conclude that the objection to opinion pieces is based on the fact that they are critical, and not the fact that they are opinion pieces per se.

If (talk) would like to expand on why Crosley-Corcoran's article in the Huffington post is "Scholarly writing" but Conor Friedersdorf writing in the Atlantic is not, that would be helpful. I should also point out that, in an article which does have so many scholarly sources, I find it unusual that Crosley-Corcoran's views are given such prominence.

I should add that it is not my intention to include every Opinion piece. But where they are good RS and contain arguments not currently represented in the page, or provide some nuance to these, I think they would be a useful addition.

Keith Johnston (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

First, feel free to expand on where I called Crosley-Corcora's article "scholarly". EvergreenFir (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk) Thanks, I was referring to your statement:

"Scholarly writings are not necessarily research articles presenting data. This "politically-driven pseudo-science" is widely used to illustrate a concept and thus is appropriate in an article about that concept. Similarly with Crosley-Corcoran's viral article."

I interpreted this - that its a 'scholarly article' - as a justification for including reference to Crosley-Corcoran's article, but not Conor Friedersdorf's? If this is not the case then there must be another reason why reference to Crosley-Corcoran's article is preferred over Conor Friedersdorf's? I have posited the fact that it is because Crosley-Corcoran's article is supportive whereas Conor Friedersdorf's contains argumentation which contains critique. Keith Johnston (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to McIntosh in those first two sentences, but saying that the Crosley-Corcoran article is being used to illustrate the idea, despite not being scholarly. I can see the ambiguity in my wording though. As for Friedersdorf, I don't have an issue with the author or article. Rather, I have some issues with (1) carving out a "critiques" section and (2) give potentially undue weight to articles like his (WP:DUE). The Crosley-Corcoran article, to me, makes sense to briefly include given its viral spread. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this useful dialogue, and your clarification that you have no issue with Friedersdorf and The Atlantic per se. Let me be clear that I am not making an argument for a critique section (or point to the quotes if you think I am). If we agree that these critical references should be included then it will be up to editors to decide where best to fit them into the page in the absence of a critique section. All I am doing is suggesting that the Friedersdorf argument and reference be included in enough depth to convey its meaning (its 57 words v 274 words for Crosley-Corcoran). As I understand it you have posited the undue weight argument implying that Friedersdorf's view does not have enough "viral spread" to justify inclusion anywhere in the article. I don't know what this means and in any event this is not my understanding of how RS are evaluated. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. Either way the argument Friedersdorf expresses in the Atlantic fits that definition. Keith Johnston (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Having given this over a month for a response, and in the absence of any further commentary, I will move to include this Friedersdorf critique in a couple of day. Are there any arguments against including this that have not been addressed, or would anyone like to object to the arguments already made?Keith Johnston (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Since you have failed to gain consensus, and have failed to clearly explain how cramming this source into the article improves it, and your presentation of the source is at-odds with everyone else's, the answer was obvious before you even asked the question. Don't bother replying with another loaded question. You've already tried that and it doesn't work. Grayfell (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

More Comments

Not again!? Not the same over!? I haven't tried reading the article in detail, let alone reading the critique or criticism that User:Keith Johnston is continuing to try to provide, but I know that about six weeks ago the discussion was going nowhere, and that consensus was against him, and he was advised to let the matter drop. I see that there was a Request for Comments in August. Is it being accepted as consensus? If not, is another RFC planned to take its place (a procedure which can itself be tendentious, but is not just a filibuster in the way that continued discussion of a decided issue is? I see that you have already been given formal notice that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are available for disruptive editing; I am not sure whether you understood. I had previously said that, if stating the same point twice doesn't persuade multiple editors, simply finding another forum so as to state it five times is not likely to change minds. It appears that consensus is against you. Just drop it, or you will learn how discretionary sanctions work. Is that clear finally? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Keith Johnston has started many threads on this discussion page, an RfC, and several attempts at mediation and dispute resolution. He isn't listening to the advise that everybody, including editors who have never read this article, give him. The next stop is WP:AE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse

At the suggestion of a third party I originally referenced this proposed change on Grayfell talk page. I thought this might be useful although I was concerned that it was not the best way to reach consensus since, even if we agreed, other editors may not. In any event we did not agree and I have included that discussion here for completeness and so I can reply to the arguments raised in due course.

Hi Greyfell, thanks for your suggestion that future proposals to the White Privilege page should include actionable changes, and I have proposed this discreet and concise change. I think this is a better approach rather than going too broad or getting too abstract.

I have proposed the following and look forward to your comments on the talk page.

"Conor Friedersdorf objects to privilege theory by arguing that it replaces color-blindness with a “hyper-emphasis on everyone's racial or ethnic background, including artificially constructed majoritarian whiteness” and that such practice might be counter-productive noting: “nothing in U.S. history leads me to believe that encouraging people to regard whiteness as the core of their identity will end well." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/the-limits-of-talking-about-privilege/386021/ Keith Johnston (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This proposed edit is unacceptable.

First, you've cherry-picked two different quotes from different paragraphs, swapped their order, and presented them as though there were connected through editorializing language. These quotes are taken out of a lengthy article to support your obvious prior assumptions that "white privilege theory" should be challenged. Referring to the deracination available to white people, Friedersdorf says that "That same privilege has been unjustly denied to other groups, especially blacks." This demonstrates that Friedersdorf understands that privilege exists, and is worth discussing in some contexts, because he gives a specific example of it and then discusses it. He is not "objecting to privilege theory" as a whole, he is, at most, challenging how it's used in schools. He specifically says this is about pedagogy. As the current Wikipedia article already says, in the lede, "white privilege" is an accepted academic term which has been thrust into mainstream attention. Friedersdorf's point, for what it's worth, is completely different from what you're claiming it is.

Second, why is Conor Friedersdorf's opinion significant enough to justify inclusion, and why a rambling run-on sentence containing two quotes taken from two separate paragraphs? Out of all the thousands of published pages of op-ed out-gassing that exist on white privilege, why this particular article by this particular nobody? I've already said I think the article over-relies on op-eds and blogs, so I'm very reluctant to add even more to the heap. This is an op-ed from a random journalist, so why are these points informative to the article? Of course, if you were actually to summarize the points he makes in his article, you might agree that they're not worth including after all.

I'm not sure how productive this is going to be, because you haven't yet successfully summarized the point being made by any source you've tried to insert into that article. Selectively summarizing a much longer source is always difficult even for uncontroversial content, and in this case, you have already demonstrated that your biases cloud your judgement. I do not see any purpose in ignoring this problem. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

(Copied by) Keith Johnston (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Filling up talk pages with copy/pasted old comments from other pages is disruptive. Raising the same points over and over again, month after month without bringing anything new to the table and expecting people to take you seriously... Sure seems privileged to me. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I was responding to your sensible suggestion that any future proposals should include actionable changes.

You say Friedersdorf is a ‘random journalist’. Rather, he is staff writer at the Atlantic, a recognised reliable source. The purpose of including reference to the Friedersdorf piece is to include important argumentation not currently contained in the White Privilege page. This is the argument that a focus on the race of the person may be ultimately counter-productive since it replaces the theory of color-blindness with a hyperemphasis on group identity which in turn leads to doomed ‘Balkanisation’. Here is Friedersdorf:

“Simplistic colorblindness is unequipped to grasp their legacy. But is the best way forward hyper-emphasis on everyone's racial or ethnic background, including artificially constructed majoritarian whiteness, on the bet that every identity group will cease succumbing to tribalism? Or should we strive for a future where all individuals can embrace or ignore their racial identity per their preference? Perhaps neither approach can ever fully succeed. But I'd argue that the former approach poses a much greater risk of balkanization, and is doomed insofar as "separate-but-equal" never actually works.”

Perhaps you are correct that the quotes could be improved and I’d be happy to have that debate. There is no need to quote extensively to make the point, which is an argument not held exclusively by Friedersdorf. I might suggest amending it to this actionable change:

Critics argue that White privilege may be counter productive since its focus on race replaces the theory of color-blindness with a hyper-emphasis on group identity which in turn leads to doomed ‘Balkanisation’. [Reference: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/the-limits-of-talking-about-privilege/386021/

] Keith Johnston (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You cannot abuse sources to support your preconceived assumptions about what the authors think, and then drop those assumptions into the article as a bunch of cherry-coated weasel-turds. This one paragraph from a multi-page opinion article is not representative of "critics" just because you say it is. Yes, Friedersdorf is a random journalist. He is a random staff writer one random reliable outlet among many who said something vaguely adjacent to a point you have been desperate to cram into the article for months. This is cherry-picking. Is anybody other reliable sources talking about Friedersdorf opinions? Does any reliable source quote these specific points of this specific opinion-piece? Further, does this hypothetical source not also mention Friedersdorf's acceptance of the concept of white privilege in other parts of the opinion? If so, why would we include one half of this and not the other? Why do you, editor with a point to prove, get to decide which parts of this source are worth mentioning, and which aren't? Grayfell (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"a future where all individuals can embrace or ignore their racial identity per their preference?"

And I would love to see a unicorn too. This seems to be the description of a utopia, not a description of past or present conditions. When in United States history was there an option to ignore your racial identity? When has American society not discriminated according to perceived racial identity? Dimadick (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that's original research. To engage constructively in the argument you need to muster RS to support your point, not give your own views.Keith Johnston (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Despite its many, many flaws, Friedersdorf's article repeatedly acknowledges that white privilege exists and shapes many aspects of life in America. He specifically says that students ought to be exposed to ... thought-provoking works like Peggy McIntosh's influential essay on privilege. This is not a critique of the entire concept of white privilege. It is more a criticism of the way it's taught to high school and undergraduate college kids. Grayfell (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no more right, on my own, to make changes than you do. That's why I am engaging in a debate on the argumentation on these talk pages. I cannot find any justification for describing Friedersdorf as a 'random journalist'. Friedersdorf has been writing for The Atlantic, a well respected an American magazine founded in 1857, since November 2009. Incidentally I have no idea why you changed the section title to "Beating a dead horse". We are having a constructive debate. I can see this is challenging for the liberal-left consensus of the majority of editors on this page, but there is room for conservative opinion justified by RS on wikipedia is there not? Keith Johnston (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree its not a critique of the entire concept, but it is an important critique of the practice of it. I think you have hit on a really important point, that its a critique of how its taught to high school and undergraduate college kids. Can we agree that there is a difference between the critique of the theory vs critique of the practice? Perhaps that is the best way forward. Its interesting, by way of example, that the page on Communism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Criticism) links to a separate page to discuss critique of Communism in practice. To accommodate this difference we can create create a "White Privilege in Practice" page to discuss popular RS reaction.Keith Johnston (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop inserting responses into the middle of discussions. If you insist on talking about this, at least stop taking other editors' comments out of context like you insist on doing with sources.

This isn't "conservative opinion", and lumping this into that category is painfully misguided. Ignoring the RFC and arguing the same point for months is beating a dead horse. Your insinuations that those who disagree with you are ideologically blinded tips your hand as to what this is really about, but is still inappropriate. Since you cannot seem to understand what your own sources are saying, you do not appear qualified to create a spin-off article without it becoming a WP:POVFORK or WP:COATRACK. The ability to search google for the phrase "white privilege" is not enough to build a second article on this topic, and you have failed to demonstrate why such an article would be productive. Grayfell (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thats a shame, I thought you made an excellent point about Friedersdorf. Namely, that his is a critique of how White privilege is taught to high school and undergraduate college kids. We could build on your point to reach consensus. However, you have ignored this possibility in preference for an ad hominem attack on me. Since you cant engage with the RS, I have asked the question: "Is Conor Friedersdorf and the Atlantic A Reliable Source?" on the Reliable Sources noticeboard to give other editors an opportunity to give their opinion.Keith Johnston (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The summary you gave at the RSN demonstrates that you have been selectively ignoring what I've been saying. If you agree that this source isn't a critique of white privilege as a concept, why are you still trying to misrepresent what Friedersdorf is saying in the article? This would be a disservice to both the article, and to Friedersdorf. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

So this is no longer arguing that Friedersdorf and the Atlantic are not a reliable source? I want to be clear on that as then we can collectively focus on a summary of his argumentation and make progress. I dont disagree with some of the points you make, so progress towards consensus may be in sight, but if we agree on the summary only to revert to disagreement on whether its an RS then we are back to square one.Keith Johnston (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent this discussion. At no point was anyone arguing that the Atlantic is never reliable. Almost any source can be reliable for some things, but no source is reliable for content it doesn't support. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Always. As I've said before, the points being made by this source are unremarkable. An accurate summary of this source would not support the points you have been trying to include. A proper summary would state his obvious and vague opinion, but would still have to be couched in attribution, making it empty filler in an already lengthy article. Grayfell (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, making progress. We can agree that the Atlantic is a reliable source. Can we now agree that Conor Friedersdorf is a reliable source? You earlier dismissed him as an unreliable source: a 'random journalist'. Separately I'm surprised you are now saying this reliable source is making 'unremarkable' points given you earlier made the point that he is addressing how White privilege is taught to high school and undergraduate college kids. Surely how White privilege is taught to high school and undergraduate college kids is relevant to an article on White Privilege, especially as this point is not addressed in the current article. Happy to work on sharpening up the summary if you think I am missing key points?Keith Johnston (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:CIVILPOV is still POV pushing, and you are still twisting my words to fit a very specific agenda. A reliably sourced opinion is not automatically significant. Random journalists can be perfectly reliable, as you must realize, but since you did not even seem to realize what this opinion is, you have not demonstrated why it would belong in the article. I'm not interested in playing this facile game of yours any further. Grayfell (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this subject matter controversial?

Is this subject matter controversial? This page is listed on Wikipedia page of Controversial topics - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_controversial_topics Is this evidence that it is controversial? Keith Johnston (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because they are on the list, we don't put "controversial" in the lead sentence. We don't say "The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism…" or "Jehovah's Witnesses is a controversial religion…" or "Jesus is a controversial religious leader."

Moreover, the claim that white privilege exists is widely accepted. To repeat my answer to a different version of this request…

If "theory" is designed to leave room for doubt, we have this problem: there's really no doubt about the past existence of white privilege. If white privilege is the set of "societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances," essentially no one believes that this has always been an empty set. One can simply list things that were once exclusively granted to whites, such as (in the United States:) the right to become a naturalized citizen, the right to vote (in many states), freedom from hereditary enslavement, etc. The idea that WP never existed is WP:FRINGE.

What is actually subject to widespread public dispute is the continuation of white privilege beyond the de jure legal equality obtained in the mid-20th century (late 20th century for South Africa). That is, some argue that the set of societal privileges held by whites is now an empty set.

Moreover, the present existence of racial stratification of privileges within society is the majority view of reliable sources as evidenced by these statements of disciplinary organizations:

• "Race serves as a basis for the distribution of social privileges and resources." (American Sociological Association 2003)
• "The 'racial' worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. … Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances." (American Anthropological Association 1998)

When you put "controversial" in the lead sentence, you are essentially saying may people disagree about whether white privilege is now, or has ever, been a thing. And that's not what the criticisms documented in the article say. Instead, they disagree about the relative importance of race and class, or think the term is divisive, or "believe that the effects of white privilege are exaggerated." Great. That doesn't make the concept itself controversial.--Carwil (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, really good points here. I don't think anyone is arguing that racism in the US has never existed or that it doesnt today. But I would disagree with the argument that the concept of White Privilege is not controversial today. My evidence would be the Pew research, which points to the idea that the concepts controversy splits sharply along political lines. In other words its not typically controversial in leftist and liberal circles but it is in conservative circles. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/28/views-about-whether-whites-benefit-from-societal-advantages-split-sharply-along-racial-and-partisan-lines/. Conservative and classical liberal critics would also point to the relative success of Jewish, Asian and Indian groups which would call into question the argument that white success is down to white privilege over other factors. https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/02/white-privilege-myth-reality/.Keith Johnston (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Keith Johnston, I think you are oversimplifying the results of the Pew research report. While a majority of respondents to the poll accept the notion that whites enjoy "societal advantages" (white privilege is not called by name), there were large differences of opinion concerning the degree to which these advantages have a beneficial effect.:

• "A majority of Americans (56%) say that white people either benefit “a great deal” (26%) or “a fair amount” (29%) from advantages that blacks do not have. About four-in-ten (43%) say white people benefit “not too much” (28%) or “not at all” (16%) from societal advantages, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Aug. 8 to 21 among 4,971 adults on the American Trends Panel. These attitudes are largely unchanged from a year ago, the last time the Center asked this question."
• "Whites and blacks have distinctly different views. An overwhelming majority of blacks (92%) say whites benefit a great deal or a fair amount from advantages that blacks do not have, including 68% who say they benefit a great deal. By comparison, 46% of whites say whites benefit at least a fair amount from advantages in society that blacks don’t have, and just 16% of whites say whites benefit a great deal. Attitudes among Hispanics fall between those of whites and blacks, with about two-thirds of Hispanics (65%) saying white people benefit a great deal or a fair amount from societal privileges that black people do not have."
• "The gap between Republicans and Democrats also is stark. Nearly eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (78%) say white people benefit a great deal or a fair amount from advantages unavailable to black people; just 21% say they do not benefit at all or do not benefit too much. The views of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are nearly the opposite: 27% say whites benefit a great deal or a fair amount from societal advantages, compared with 72% who say they do not benefit at all or do not benefit too much."
• "Although wide majorities of both black and white Democrats say whites enjoy at least a fair amount of advantages that blacks do not (95% and 73%, respectively), black Democrats are much more likely than white Democrats to say whites have a great deal of advantages (72% vs. 32%)."

So several of the Republican correspondents do believe that there are societal advantages, and several of the Democratic ones don't believe it. But they are minorities among their larger ideological groups. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, thats a useful breakdown. I will digest it. Meantime here is another example of a reliable source questioning the fundamentals of white privilege, suggesting that the idea that it does not exist is not fringe. Having said that, its not necessary to go as far as to suggest that the theory does not exist to suggest how its used is controversial. There is a useful distinction to make between theory and practice, as Grayfell has pointed out above.

"The most fundamental problem for this or any proposal to offset white privilege is this: American whites’ advantages do not constitute white privilege. Therefore, there’s nothing that needs to be offset in the first place." http://quillette.com/2017/06/24/skepticism-white-privilege/ Spencer Case, in Quillette Keith Johnston (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact that people have written essays opposing the concept of white privilege is adequate covered in the lead by the presence of an entire paragraph discussing criticism of the concept. What makes you think an additional essay proves we need to insert controversial into the first sentence?--Carwil (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Keith Johnson, you might find the argument in that blog persuasive but it is just some blog written by some doctoral candidate. You were on a better path citing the atlantic. An even better path would be serious scholarly work on the topic. Sources and the policies and guidelines are authoritative. Not the arguments in sources, nor the editors bringing the sources. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, agreed we can debate the reliability of Quillette, the author and his arguments separately. Quillette is an RS in a number of wikipedia articles, especially the James Damore memo so it has already been accepted as such. Its not a blog. The suggestion that wikipedia should be restricted to 'scholarly work' is not justified by wikipedia guidelines. These say: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" and "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications".Keith Johnston (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

our mission in WP is to present articles that summarize accepted knowledge. That is the mission. The mission is not to change the world or advocate for one opinion or another with regard to the realities described in WP. We have a policy against advocacy in WP: WP:SOAP. We also have a helpful essay about advocacy -- see WP:ADVOCACY. Please aim at the mission of WP.

We look for "accepted knowledge" in the best sources we can and we summarize those sources, looking simply to present accepted knowledge. We are not here to advocate for anything.

there are a lot of people who come here and want to make WP continuous with the blogosphere and drag all kinds of shitty blogs into WP. The more people do that, the more difficult, contentious, and bogged down everything gets, because there is always another shitty blog to "counter" what some shitty blog says, and how do we possibly judge if one blog is less shitty than another? This is also generally what happens when people are doing advocacy work, rather than aiming at the mission.

Bringing very high quality, scholarly sources is a more efficient way to get things done; the higher the quality of the source the less time is taken up discussing whether it should be used or not, etc. Raising standards is never bad; lowering them almost always leads to contention and trouble.

If you would like more coverage in this article about "controversy" please find high quality secondary sources that are aiming at describing the controversy, that we can summarize. It is a dangerous and difficult path to reach for primary sources that are in or pursuing controversies and try to summarize them here and very often edits doing this will be rejected. Edits summarizing controversies, based on high quality sources that describe controversies, tend to stick. See btw WP:Beware of tigers. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of the Invisible Backpack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here is a very interesting article sourced from Quillette critiquing Peggy McIntosh's Invisible Backpack on the basis that it is not a scholarly analysis but rather a personal record. Here’s what Peggy McIntosh herself says on in the original 1988 paper: “This paper is a partial record of my personal observations and not a scholarly analysis. It is based on my daily experiences within my particular circumstances”

The source is here: https://quillette.com/2018/08/29/unpacking-peggy-mcintoshs-knapsack/#comment-33897

I have seen this criticism a few times now and its important because the Invisible Backpack is a foundational paper for White Privilege theory. I wonder if there is a place in this article to include this critique? Keith Johnston (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The link you gave is to a comment stating "I have the same question. My sense is that other actors weaponized it. Between that and intersection it destroyed the beginnings of co-ordinated world wide resistance after ten years of war and the financial meltdown. Now we don’t even have a peace movement."

That aside, we need more than a self published critique for it to be included. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks sorry I gave the link to the comment, not the full article. I was referring to the article, not the comment. Here it is https://quillette.com/2018/08/29/unpacking-peggy-mcintoshs-knapsack/ It is not self-published, it was published by a reliable source, Quillette.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

That piece is very much of an essay; it is not reporting accepted information, but rather giving the author's opinion. (very evident in passages like The apostles of this ludicrous doctrine ...). The bio at the bottom says "William Ray is a decorated former Canadian Peacekeeper now working as a Journalist, Documentary Film-maker, and very substandard handyman. He is active in advancing Press Freedom in Montréal.". We don't appear to have an article on him at the diambig page: William Ray. Why is this person's opinion noteworthy? 08:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, its important to include the significant critiques of the theory and this critique, that McIntosh's essay is not based on scholarly work, has become a noteworthy critique of White Privilege theory. Jordan Peterson (gasp!) has made the same arguments here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfH8IG7Awk0. Ironically your objection that the Quillette piece is "merely the authors opinion" is precisely in the same vein as his critique of McIntosh's work. As McIntosh freely admits her original article is very much an essay, not a scholarly work but giving her "partial record of my personal observations". Keith Johnston (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

We have many reliable, scholarly works commenting on this essay, which is why it's discussed here. Your WP:SPA push to include a CSECTION in this article is against consensus and needs to stop, as it is still disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not arguing for a CSECTION. If I am point to the passages that support your contention? If you cannot will you withdraw this claim?

Your accusation of disruption is also false. I make my comments on the talk pages, support them with RS, and I do not force edits. I note that, once again, you do not engage with the RS, or the argumentation, but instead widen the issue in an attempt at misdirection. This is fillibustering.

The one argument you do posit: that because there is no consensus for a CSECTION, critique should not be expanded upon is absurd. The best argument for not having a CSECTION is that critique can be woven into the body of the article, which is precisely what I am proposing. Rather I charge that your false position that I am arguing for a CSECTION is cover for your consistent position that critique supported by RS should not be included at all.

I have consistently argued for the inclusion of reliably sourced critique, representing argumentation found in RS, that is all. Your misrepresentation of my position must stop, as should your campaign to protect this controversial theory from critique supported by RS. Keith Johnston (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You have consistently argued for the inclusion of opinions you agree with, and have abused various sources to support this. Yet again, you are attempting to narrowly confine the discussion, and yet again, I remind you that you do not have that right. Attempts to "engage the sources" are pointless if they are either unreliable political gossip, such as these, or you have demonstrated that you are not fairly summarizing them. You spent many weeks pushing for Atlantic/Friedersdorf article to be misrepresented as somehow opposed to the entire concept. This was a source which specifically argues for students to read "thought-provoking works like Peggy McIntosh's influential essay on privilege." Now you want us to insert some obscure essays and 2.5-hour-long ramble-fests criticizing this essay? WP:CIVILPOV is not acceptable. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, can you point to the passages that support your contention that I am arguing for a CSECTION? I see you have not as yet. Since this argument is now being used to deny me the right to suggest any critique regardless of its RS (and paint me as unreasonable since I apparently cannot accept the outcome of the RFC), it would be useful to get clarity on this point before continuing the discussion on the relevance of the RS. The false claim that I am continuing the push for a CSECTION is a convenient get-out-of-jail free card when other argumentation fails.

Perhaps, for the sake of clarity, it would be useful to re-state my view that, while I believe a CSECTION would be useful, I am not pushing for a CSECTION on this page because I accept the argument that critique can be incorporated into the body of the text. Keith Johnston (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

How many times do you describe this essay as a critique? By your own description, this is its main quality, and this also appears to be the main reason you want it included here. You are, again, pushing for the inclusion of critical content solely because it is critical. This is a direct continuation of your prior disruptive behavior. As with all the other essays and youtube videos (!) you have pushed for including, you have not even indicated why this would be significant or valuable to readers, and you have so severely poisoned the well for this kind of thing that it's hard to take this kind of hyper-civil shtick seriously. Grayfell (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.