Talk:White privilege/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Criticism

What happened to the "Criticism" section of this article? Like it's parent "critical race theory", "white privilege" is controversial and debated. Yet very few of the challenges once included remain in this article. I didn't have time to examine the entire history, but it has the appearance of, pardon the phrase, some whitewashing by select editors.EyePhoenix (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Tone

Forgive my inexperience with whikipedia editing etc. , but I have to indulge myself to make this one point: Enumerating the countless ways that whites might have it better does guilt even poorer white readers like myself. I wonder though if the tone of this article serves to further knowledge and understanding or to accuse a whole race of unfairness. I feel so. I for one have worked hard for every dime I have earned and wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. To suggest that all whites, or most whites, or some whites are born more priveleged than minorities might be the case in isolated instances, but it's not universally true, and it's not relevant. We all begin where we begin in life. A crack addicted infant might have a larger burden than one born to a rich family, but their humanness is the same, and they are both responsible for their futures. I don't feel that the spirit of that neutral, human point of view was preserved here. I could carry on about rich priveledge in an article, and although from my angle it certainly exists, I would be wrong to write that article but clipping the citations of their full context, or of taking a predjudicial stance and tone.

I am a wikipedia reader, not an editor, nor even a good writer, so forgive my rant, but please try to balance the points made in this article with counterpoints or at least expanded context on the citation. In the interest of knowledge and whole truth. CorporateKiller (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)CorporateKiller

Welcome to Wikipedia. As someone new to Wikipedia, you might not understand how wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not like papers you write for school or opinion pieces you might write for a newspaper, where you are encouraged to take individual facts and then interpret what they mean. Wikipedia editors take what others have already analysed and published on a particular topic and compiles them together without introducing our own interpretations and analysis. This article is about a particular sociological idea called "White privilege". The goal of wikipedia editors is to take what others have written about this concept and place what other people have said about "White privilege" into an article that helps people understand what the sociological concept of "White privilege" means. But this has to be done using what already exists, and not our own scholarship. The article can use some improvement to bring it to a better state, but it must be done under the Wikipedia guidelines of WP:V and WP:OR, not whether or not we believe we are affected by "White privilege". -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, personal experience and opinion can be a useful reality check for articles that seem off. This article is an odd duck on Wikipedia, in that it elevates the subject of a contentious sentiment / observation / political argument to the status of an actual phenomenon. It is very hard to get this kind of thing right, but the tone of this article is far from optimal. The lead in particular, by asserting that whites have an advantage in the world, is both POV and also western-centric. At the very least it takes the point of view of opinionated people in some cultures rather than a dispassionate, neutral, world perspective. Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a fact and data guy. I have this bad habit of, before making my mind up on any issue, performing exhaustive research. When considering the ongoing discussion as to this article, I scoured Wikipedia itself to see if the answer we seek to bring this discussion to an end lies at our very fingertips. The very fact that there exists a plethora of Wikipedia articles pointing to real issues which are proven with research and data, such as Redlining, racial_profiling, Income_inequality_in_the_United_States, and Healthcare_inequality just to name a few, demands that we dismiss the baseless notion that white privilege is a theory, opinion, or point of view. These articles point to phenomena that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a very real benefit to being white in the United States of America. There are also countless articles from the history of the United States such as Japanese_American_internment, Naturalization_Act_of_1790, Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 which prove that whites have not been subject to oppressive laws which non-whites were. When taken in concert the only logical conclusion is that not only have/are whites been exempt from oppressive laws and policies that non-whites were subject to but whites have revealed numerous advantages and privileges that non-whites have been restricted from. If that is not white privilege, then what? Fseven (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that the difficult thing with this article is that it's a reasonably well established academic theory that asserts an idea that makes people uncomfortable. In the scholarly world this kind of thing gets taken as one idea in a broader discussion; non-scholars, however, tend to read as an accusation.

It's an unfortunate fact that scientific theories about human nature always carry a moral dimension that can violate people's self-conceptions. The theory of evolution violates the commonly-held religious belief that we were made in the image of god; Freudian psychology violated liberal presumptions that we are inherently rational beings; Marxist theories violate some very deeply-held beliefs that we live in a fair and just world. Fact is, we all just normally assume that we are a lot better than we actually are, and mist people are uncomfortable with facing that. THis article certainly needs some work to make it clear that this is a scientific theory about the world rather than an established fact about the world (that's been on my back burner for a while now), but the idea itself is notable. --Ludwigs2 15:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that facts and theories aren't exclusive entities. See, for example, Stephen Jay Gould's "Evolution as Fact and Theory". -- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, whether or not the article makes people feel "uncomfortable" is irrelevant. Mein Kamph makes some folks feel uncomfortable too, and they have their reasons. Discomfort is not the litmus test of a reliably sourced article.EyePhoenix (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete article

Everything in the article is subjective. I vote we delete it. As is it has no merit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.116.105 (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably not prudent to delete, just take it with a grain of salt. WP is a bullshit interpretation of statistics, which says, because the statistics say that blacks, as a group, are more disadvantaged than whites, therefore, there is this force called "whiteness" that is like some free passport to a better life, and magically makes it so that in some unmeasurable way, my life is better. Please name me the specific blacks that were screwed because I have a good education and nice house. Beyond this, it assumes that whites are not aware of this fictional force called whiteness, and takes this unawareness as theoretical fact. Since when is un-awareness a law? As part of it's culture, denial of this theory automatically makes you either un-aware of its subtleties ("You just don't get it. It's not YOU that's bad, it's the white privilege") or a racist. So if you don't buy their little guilt party, then you're a racist. What a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.197.220 (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Slow down on the deleting idea. While the article does have some problems, "white privilege" is a real concern that people should be aware of. Yes, I am white. No, my concerns on this topic are not motivated by some sort of white liberal guilt. In my opinion, white privilege shows up unquestionably in racial profiling. It is an unconcious line of reasoning for many people that should be exposed. If someone does not agree with my views on white privilege, that does not mean they are racist. Even if the majority of people feel white privilege does not, a) matter, or b) exist, this article should be kept to represent the other side of the arguement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.58.53 (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia was limited to only topics where consensus-agreed objective information exists, then Wikipedia would be a very small repository. The extent of the footnotes alone correctly indicates that this is no fringe topic; there is a large body of research on this topic published in peer-reviewed professional journals. Granted, this is NOT an easy topic to comprehend, especially if (by analogy) you ask a fish that swims in water to describe water. The fish has no other experience as point of comparison and reference. I recommend that those who use personal or anecdotal experience to discredit this topic also read the linked topic about Confirmation Bias, especially the first sentence of that article.Sawgrass (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's talk about Black privilege then. Where in South Africa you don't have to worry about being killed because you're a Boer, where you know the president won't sing about killing you just because of your race. White privilege is bullshit, I grew up in the East side of Chicago, a majority Mestizo area, and most of them were richer than I was. I can also pull out statistics about Blacks committing more crime, would you be alright if we all just blamed it on "Black's are more prone to crime"? Nope. You're pretty much doing the same but in reverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.236.199 (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this page should be deleted or re-written. It’s not that this topic needs any consensus but I think that it does misguide the reader when you initially start to read it to think of WHITE PRIVILEGE as WHITE SUPREMACY or WHITE POWER. I was assigned to write an essay on this topic and was completely misguided by this article that the WHITE PRIVILEGE has to do with oppression of other races as it initially starts to talk about. After doing extensive research and reading McIntosh’s Essay on White Privilege it leaves clear that this topic is suppose to talk about the benefits that people are born with just because of their white skin color. Has nothing to do with wealth even though there is some illustrations for this area but more with the advantages that people of White Skin think is normal. Thinking of this topic as an area of the oppressed will not guide the reader in the correct ways of dismantle ling this from our society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.122.157 (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, this article is bad, but we shouldn't delete it in my opinion. White Privileged is a big subject on other race's perspective on White. There are many other page on stereotypes on other page, too, such as this articles on Asian stereotypes Model minority(though this one is more positive). Jamesminhanh (talk) 06:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Criticisms of White Privilege"

I have made changes to the section "Criticisms of white privilege" and moved the material into the "Wealth" section. My reasons are as follows:

• "Criticism" sections are discouraged on Wikipedia.
• Despite the title of the section it was not a criticism of unearned advantages that white people receive.
• Before my edits there was reference to "white privilege theory"; this phrasing is problematic for reasons already discussed here.

Even as it stands, this text might require more editing; a cursory glance at Forrest and Dunn's paper suggests to me that what we currently have does not reflect their viewpoints very well.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "Criticisms" section does not belong under the section on the US. However, in my opinion one small paragraph does not warrant a section on its own. More importantly, the title "Criticisms of White Privilege" is still problematic for reasons already discussed. For now I am going to incorporate. I will be incorporating the material into the overview section. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Complete Lack of Criticism

There are at least two broad problems with this article, as is. The first is that there is virtually no presentation of criticism of the theory of white privilege. The second is that much of the article deals with forms of discrimination against minorities, with no direct connection to the idea of white privilege. While I see the connection between the idea of white privilege and discrimination, the discussion of discrimination must be tied in with a discussion of the theory, and currently much of the article reads as a list of forms of racial discrimination. The goal of this article should be to lay out what the theory is, what debate has occurred around it, and its historical origins. I'm going to work to address these problems with the current article. I look forward to working with the other editors here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is an embarrassment to thought

Where do you even begin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.19.89 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Very convincing argument. I'm sold! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.13.199.40 (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Request Title Change to White-Skin Privilege

This article sure touched a sore spot, did it not? The theory of white-skin privilege is an internationally accepted theory of racial imperative and its impacts. Books, journal articles and PhD. theses have been published as far back as "White Skins, Black Masks" in 1952 by Algerian psychiatrist Franz Fanon. True, there are an inexhaustible number of theories in the fields of sociology, psychology and psychiatry on all types of psycho-social problems. While these fields, and theories, are not necessarily empirical-based studies, as with the hard sciences, would we throw out the theory of social interactionism, the theory of harm reduction, Freudian psychoanalytic theories, theories of therapeutic interventions, etc? If so, then there would be little to study in institutions of higher learning other than the hard sciences. The soft theories fall somewhere between art and science, as any practitioner knows. So, what is the problem here, white guilt? Racial superiority amongst Wiki editors? This article is clearly as sound as any other theory just enumerated.

Highly recommend that the tone and other tags be removed without delay and that the article be reclassified/reassessed as a B-class article. Note this is the first comment in more than a year. Any more thoughts Wikipedians? Don't be shy. Weathervane13 (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Support. This article has scores of citations. There is no reason it should have had the tags for as long as it has. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: there's a lot of commentary above about the article that will got lost in a name change discussion.

Opppose. A quick google books search suggests White skin privilege loses to White privilege per WP:COMMONNAME. Equally importantly, the boundaries of socially recognized whiteness aren't necessarily all mainatained on the color of skin. The legal battles in the United States over whether Iranians, Egyptians, Armenians, and Indians were legally white are just one example. Similarly, it's possible for socially nonwhite people (such as light-skinned Native Americans) to incidentally have access to "white skin privilege."

It would be useful to sort out the usages of "white-skin privilege" and "white skin-privilege" in this article. I don't see a big or clear enough distinction to divide the article in any way.--Carwil (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I should probably clarify that what I support is the removal of tags. When it comes to the article title, my only desire is that whatever term is used be used consistently throughout the article. I will happily support the consensus regarding which term this should be. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that, in contemporary America, Asians enjoy just as much normative "privilege" as do Caucasians (income, education, social standing), perhaps even more. Yet their skin is hardly white, and they do not identify as "white." Also plenty of blacks and latinos achieve "privilege" as well. This whole "white privilege" discussion seems forced to me. Mainly it's a class thing; people who represent themselves a certain way (educated, conscious, considerate, respectful, well-spoken, competent) enjoy easy acceptance, both personally and professionally. You might make a case that this is a self-perpetuating "class" thing. But it has little to do with race or skin color. And it has nothing to do with "white" racial identity.

This is patently false; to claim even for a moment that people of Asian descent share equal privilege as white individuals is simply untrue. The racist attitudes Asian Americans and Asian immigrants are forced to endure at the hands of the media and the general population on a day-to-day basis are very real. Consider looking up the phenomenon of the "perpetual foreigner," look at the stereotypes perpetuated in television and movie depictions of people of Asian descent, or simply ask a few people that identify as Asian and ask them about the racism and constant microaggressions that they have had to endure during their lives. Every person that I have spoken to about racism and race issues that identifies as Asian has told me that they experience blatant racism and are daily affected by the threat of racism. This is arguably exactly what this article is about: that the privilege of being white allows white people (like you, I am assuming) to dismiss racism in its less overt forms because they are not forced to experience its effects. This avoidance of racism is an unearned benefit of being white that people of color are not able to enjoy. I would suggest that you think about talking to people who are Asian or simply read some essays by Asian writers. I am absolutely certain that you will see that you are very much misinformed regarding this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.13.199.40 (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this article needs to be rewritten to reflect a growing consensus that the social theory of "white privilege" is an anachronism associated with flawed late twentieth century thinking. Defective social theories need to be discarded, yet they also need to be remembered as the aberrations they were. Theories having to do with Aryan racial superiority, which found expression in the eugenics movement, come easily to mind. Apostle12 (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We are supposed to use the Talk page to discuss the article and not the topic of the article, so I will take your first paragraph to be a suggestion that we might improve the article by explicitly enumerating some of the ways white people have privilege over Asians specifically. Would you like to take an active role in improving the article by including mentions of the fact that Asians are more likely than any other ethnic group in the US to get bullied[1] or that Asians in the US are seen as the least "American"[2]?

I will take your second paragraph to be an indication that it is time to replace our current approach to explaining to new editors that what matters on Wikipedia is not what any given editor thinks but what reliable, independently verifiable sources say. Do you have any thoughts on how we can better express this?

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is utter nonsense that white people have privilege over Asians. What you have written in this section is typical of the confused sort of thinking that attends this topic. Please make some attempt to clarify your thoughts before attempting to write them down. Thank you.Apostle12 (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This post is off topic. --Cornince (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

White GENOCIDE

Should we include a section on White GENOCIDE as one of the many privileges of White people?

Mass immigration and FORCED assimilation in ALL White countries and ONLY White countries is GENOCIDE

UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2 1948

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such

c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part 146.90.28.241 (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest. It's my feeling that "white privilege" has more to do with "micropower" than with "macropower". That is, it has to do with the daily experiences and life experiences of white people, as opposed to the systemic consequences of racism. That being said, if there are reliable sources that connect the issue of genocide to "white privilege", they might be appropriate. For a historical event that directly relates to your question, check out "We Charge Genocide", a petition submitted to the United Nations in 1951. Thanks again for your comment and I hope you hang out for a little while to find out more about how Wikipedia works behind the scenes. groupuscule (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that the petition you cite originated more than 60 years ago. Certainly no one can argue that "GENOCIDE" (white or not) is a "privilege" of being white.

When using the term "FORCED assimilation," I wonder what the writer might be referring to? The only examples I can think of also are very dated--the establishment of government schools for Native American children, where the children were forbidden to use their native languages. These, of course, have not existed for about 50 years.

I believe the focus of this article is on the present, except for the section that talks about the history of "white privilege" as a theoretical concept. I know of no examples of "institutionalized racism" (much less genocide) in the United States today, except for those that grant special dispensation to specific groups based on race--so-called "affirmative action" programs. Fortunately this vestige of institutionalized racism is on the wane, as affirmative action has been made illegal in many states. A SCROTUS ruling is due out soon that will determine the legal status of race-based affirmative action nationwide. Apostle12 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The ugliest chapters in human history are those that involve genocide. At the moment I do not know what to say about this except that I will look to others for guidance on how we can relate genocide to white privilege. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So you are TRYING to relate genocide to white privilege? Apostle12 (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

World view

Unless W P is unique to USA I have placed tags to aid in developing this article to reflect WP as a global study. I am adding this as some people seem to own this page and other editors dont get to contribute. To much weight is on America. What about South Africa, What about Israel (yes Israel), And Europe?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right. White privilege is by no means limited to the US, so these are all good questions. Do you know of any good starting points for finding information on these matters? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No i dont which is why it is an issue because I came here to find that info and didn't. But I would say start with South Africa. There is an excellent article on white privileged (i feel like i mention this before unless it is dejavu) by a Kenyan writer. I will search and find it. But it proves the issue of W P even in Kenya.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

found stuff Mandela and for guides to other viewpoints I wish i could develop it but I am researching religion.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. I have read the article, and I will watch the videos (if only for my own education, but hopefully they will make me a more prepared editor as well). Unfortunately I will not have the time to watch or work on this over the weekend. Perhaps another editor would like to begin this task? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that South Africa would be a useful separate section. We probably should cover the pre-1947 South African educational system, education under apartheid, and then the post-1996 educational system. Racepacket (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

it would be a good start, because in both periods is the issue of W P.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is still very lopsided for the US. But at least the lead should probably include South Africa. "Europe, the Americas, and South Africa"? Or use the whole continent? groupuscule (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

how about "Europe, the Americas, and those parts of Africa heavily settled by whites, such as South Africa"? For that matter, we could probably include Australia, and may want to make some reference to the fact that this phenomenon has similarities to colonialism, as well as acknowledging that the scholarship may not be as well developed in other countries' academy or legal systems. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over "alleged" and other mitigation language

There doesn't seem to me to be a compelling need to preface any statements in the first paragraph with "alleged." I mistakenly cited WP:WEASEL in reverting edits by Apostle12 when i more rightly should have used WP:ALLEGED, which seems rather clearly to argue against the use of "alleged" here. I think there is room for scholarship on points of view which contrast with critical race theory, though I'm not sure how the article would be organized in that event. Open to suggestions. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the bar by opening this discussion. The first sentence of the lede now reads:

"In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the alleged advantages that white people accrue from society as on the alleged disadvantages that people of color experience." (emphasis added)

The reason I believe "alleged" is an appropriate addition to this sentence is because proponents of the "white privilege" aspect of critical race theory allege that white people accrue societal advantages simply by virtue of their being white, and proponents of the "white privilege" aspect of critical race theory allege that "people of color" experience disadvantages simply by virtue of their...pigmentation, I guess. In fact the entire first paragraph of this article, including the first sentence, is so weasily that it should be entirely rewritten.

Here is what WP:ALLEGED says: "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear."

The source of the accusation in this case are proponents of the concept of "white privilege" within the context of critical race theory. Wrongdoing, specifically unfair advantage and unfair disadvantage, is definitely asserted. Yet these allegations are based on various outcomes that have often been refuted (e.g. income disparity between asian "people of color" and whites is non-existent). Under scrutiny it becomes clear that such allegations of unfairness are mere assumptions based on crude observation of outcomes, rather than being the result of carefully considered empirical evidence. They are therefore "undetermined."

The addition I made therefore is in strict compliance with WP:ALLEGED and should remain. Apostle12 (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In regards to your position on WP:ALLEGE, I respectfully disagree. the example, "such as with people on trial for crimes" appears to me to be referring to individuals, rather than ethnic groups. Is there some way we can reconcile this, maintaining the language referring to critical race theory without the modifiers, while still allowing criticism of the overarching theory? I would also submit that income disparities are not the primary thrust of critical race theory, so even though i would appreciate your additional input re: refutation, I am also not sure it is all that germane. Perhaps additional input is needed to clarify the WP:ALLEGE policy? UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have posted at WT:MOS asking for additional clarification UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with use of "alleged" in the lead here. We do use "alleged" to qualify accusations—but we would use it instead of, not in addition to, a statement such as "X accuses that Y." Similarly, here, we have 'Critical race theory says...'; therefore, the substance of what it says has the status of an allegation already. Additionally, however, I personally I don't find the existence of white privilege in the US to be an undetermined "allegation". In fact, if you look at the page on white people, you'll find that the concept of social privilege is more or less built into the definition (since it's not a cohesive genetic category). Cf. Jewish & Irish populations 'becoming white' in the US based on becoming accepted as part of the 'dominant race'. The existence of white privilege is also, I think, confirmed by broad academic consensus. groupuscule (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The use of "alleged" is inappropriate here. First, the sentence makes clear at the beginning ("In critical race theory, white privilege is ...") that white privilege is understood in the context of critical race theory—which posits the existence of white supremacy. Second, as groupuscule notes, the existence of white privilege is a fact, not an "allegation".

Finally, WP:ALLEGED has no bearing here at all. It applies "when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". What wrongdoing is being asserted? A fact is being described, or an academic discipline is being explicated, but an assertion of wrongdoing? Where? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It is, at best, sophistry to refuse to acknowledge that wrongdoing is being asserted. Unfair advantage is wrongdoing. Unfair disadvantage is wrongdoing. As far as the "existence of white privilege being confirmed by broad academic consensis," I am sure that is true among academics whose field of specialty is "White Privilege"--nowhere else. Apostle12 (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A search for "white privilege" in Google Scholar shows uses from disciplines such as education, psychology, anthropology, sociology, geography, and more, in addition to disciplines that focus on "race". No results in the first hundred seem to dispute the existence of "white privilege" entirely. Some people do tell stories of being ignorant of white privilege and then discovering it. Where should we search to find the rebuttals you're describing, Apostle12? groupuscule (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Accusing people of sophistry seems like a violation of WP:PA to me, since one of its meanings includes "intent to deceive." Unfair advantage can stem from wrongdoing, or it can stem from simple chance. Furthermore, i can imagine scenarios where one can be aware or unaware of one's unfair advantage; if we were applying a legalistic standard, there may or may not be means rea. If you could explain a little bit more about what you mean in suggesting that unfair advantage is directly equivalent to wrongdoing maybe we can sort this out. In the meantime, I have reverted the edit, and I would invite you to engage further with any scholarship you might be aware of on the topic, either on this article, or preferably on the article on critical race theory, since I gather that your dispute is mainly with that body of work. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED seems to be specifically dealing with issues of criminal behavior, but the word "alleged" has other legitimate meanings. It seems sufficiently neutral to me in this context, but perhaps a word that does not also have connotations of criminality might be best. All we really need to say is that the advantages and disadvantages have not been proven to exist or not proven to have been caused by race, that white privilege is more "these things are consistent with a white privilege explanation" and not "studies have shown that these things are caused by white privilege." How about "theoretical," "hypothetical" or "asserted"?

"In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the possible advantages that white people might or do accrue from society as on the disadvantages that people of color do or might experience." (emphasis added)

The "might or do" could be improved, but I like the way it shows that white privilege covers both things that we know happen, like it being nearly impossible for white men to have their accomplishments written off as affirmative action, and things that are purely hypothetical. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The crux of this matter lies in the definition of "privilege." According Mirriam-Webster "privilege" means "a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor." So, the question becomes "Have white people been GRANTED a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor?"

It seems obvious that, historically, white people used legal means to grant themselves peculiar benefits, advantages, or favors. By extension, those who were not white were not granted peculiar benefits, advantages, or favors--they thus became "disadvantaged" or "unprivileged." Yet not all outcome disparities can be attributed to this granting, or failure to grant, "peculiar benefits, advantages, or favors." And the legal means that were used to confer "peculiar benefits, advantages, or favors" were long ago abandoned in recognition of the fact that they were unjust.

(In fact the only vestiges of institutional racism that remain in force today are those intended to confer "peculiar benefits, advantages, or favors" on specific groups comprised of "people of color"--race-based affirmative action programs, race-based hiring quotas, etc. White people tend to be acutely aware of race-based affirmative action programs, hiring quotas, etc. because they are disadvantaged by this sort of institutionalized racism. This makes white people particularly sensitive to charges that they enjoy "white privilege." Also, it may be instructive to realize that many Jim Crow laws in the American South were instituted as a kind of "affirmative action" for whites, who found it difficult to compete in the labor market with skilled slaves freed at the end of the Civil War.)

So we arrive at a final quesiton: Does "white privilege" exist today? And this is where the picture gets muddy, where there is controversy, and where we need some kind of mitigation language. Some allege that "white privilege" continues in the form of informal courtesies, automatic extensions of trust, and even in commercial norms. ("Can I easily find bandaids that match the color of my skin, or someone who knows how to cut my hair?") Others insist that these issues do not rise the the level of "privilege," since legally sanctioned white privelege lies at least forty years in our past.

I am beginning to see that to use "alleged" is too connotative of legal processes. Yet I also believe that some kind of mitigation language is necessary. I think "might" is sufficient, and I have added it to the sentence in question. This sentence now reads, "In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people might accrue from society as on the disadvantages that people of color might experience." "Might" allows for the likelihood that such advantages and disadvantages exist even in the absence of legal sanctions, whether or not they are intended, whether or not they are uniformly experienced by "people of color" (lots of variation that has nothing to do with skin pigmentation), and whether or not white people are even aware of such advantages and disadvantages. Apostle12 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I admit to some confusion as to why you seem unwilling to break out criticisms into a separate section, cite appropriate scholarship, a and acknowledge that separately in the lede. I have reverted these changes, and would ask that you not continue to insert what appears to me to be editorializing. At the same time, I (and I imagine others) would welcome an additional section on this topic.

To me, the discussion about your edits seemed to indicate that the mitigating language you inserted was not appropriate in the lede, regardless of the specific word choice. Since it's clear that you have strong feelings about this topic, I think that WP users would be much better served by a fuller explanation of the issues at hand, and i can think of no better person to provide that than you, provided of course that there is adherence to basic tenets like WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. I very much look forward to seeing such a section, and am more than happy to help write it, but I admit that I would need to be directed to appropriate sources, as social science is not my main avocation. Feel free to ping me on my talk page and we can discuss this further.

UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of asking for help over at WP:DRN

UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to reproduce my comments from over there, since I intended to provoke:

The process of establishing WP:NPOV is of course very delicate when it comes to topics concerning race. I want to caution everyone that simply 'neutralizing' language does not automatically create a neutral viewpoint. I also want to emphasize that just because race is a psychosocial construct doesn't mean there can't be objective facts relating to how race affects society. It is a painfully objective (and abundantly verifiable) fact in the United States that people with darker skin are more likely to be targeted by law enforcement in public places. This fact does not prove that it is 'better' or 'easier' to be white on the whole—these generalizations probably cannot be established as matters of encyclopedic fact, and should be treated as allegations or frameworks from the perspective of some people ("critical race theorists"? "most scholars who study race in the United States"?) who analyze them. We might hope for a neutral society, in parallel to our neutral encyclopedia, in which there was no systematic racial discrimination. But in fact it is dangerous to generalize our neutrality in this way. Brown v. Board ended legal segregation in the American public school system, but it would be completely inaccurate to say that Brown led to integration when by all reports American schools are more segregated than they were in the 1950s.

Guy Macon, I like the wording on both of those pages that you've linked. The concept of "white privilege" should not be made overcomplicated or qualified and hedged in order to be explained. I would note that Wikipedia has over tens of thousands on articles on the institutions of white America—e.g., the United States (wow, this page really says "Christopher Colombus discovered...")—without flagging them as specifically white. But you can't go to the page on Maryland and write "The Europeans who colonized Maryland wiped out the people who already lived there and for two hundred years amassed wealth by forcing enslaved Africans to work for them" in the lede—it's simply not done, even though (IMO?) this statement is accurate from the perspective of global history. (I also want to highlight and dispute the idea that the Aryan Nation and the Black Panthers are comparable extremes to be avoided. You could just as easily compare the Black Panthers to an organized group of white people like the US Senate. By the way, Eisenhower avoided meeting with civil rights leaders according to the same logic: 'if I meet with you, I'll have to meet with the KKK'—even though one group was entering public spaces nonviolently and simply asserting their right to be there, whereas the other was responsible for lynchings and mass terror.) These types of bias on the encyclopedia are of course related to (if not precisely examples of) "white privilege". Thank you everyone for discussing these issues with open minds. I appreciate how many thoughtful and unique perspectives are expressed here. groupuscule (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

DId I miss the whole thing~? I couldn't find the dispute on the appropriate page. I agree using the word "Alleged" is a nice white wash, it almost makes racism look like it lives inside of the minds of the victims, really now. "It is alleged that African Americans suffer from institutional racism" -- creates reasonable doubt to the legitimacy of the claim. mitigatory language in favor of White domination. --Inayity (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"non-whites" or "people of color"

I was going to write this on WP:DRN but then noticed that you had made the edits here. I find the suggestion to use "non-white" instead of "people of color," while still respecting your good faith suggestion, to be somewhat offensive. The use of "non-white" in this case suggests an identity of exclusion, which as I understand it, is the reason the "people of color" term exists, and to be perfectly frank, the suggestion to use "non-white" could be construed as a symptom of white privilege itself, in the sense that one is using "white" normatively (see article). I would be interested to learn of any scholarship that sheds light on the matter, as Apostle12 suggests that the dissatisfaction with the term is broad-based or widespread enough to be included in the article. Again, if such scholarship exists (and I have no reason to say that it doesn't) I think that would be a useful contribution to WP, either in this article or in another one. I would be more than happy to help write something with Apostle12 if provided with such information. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me some people are just itching to be upset about something. Really getting ridiculous. Like complaining that whites are never accused of having benefitted disproportionately from affirmative action....well, yeah, because whites NEVER GET affirmative action benefits! "People of color" is offensive to some people because it implies that whites have no color (talk about "identity of exclusion") when in fact whites obviously do have color; in fact whites are the ones who keep all those tanning parlors in business because they want MORE MELANIN in their skin! Like I said, this is just getting ridiculous! Apostle12 (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Peggy McIntosh's piece is, if I am not mistaken, the most widely cited resource on white privilege. Because it uses the term "people of color", I recommend we do the same. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this the piece to which you are referring? http://ted.coe.wayne.edu/ele3600/mcintosh.html Has she written more? Apostle12 (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In my limited experience, this 'knapsack' essay is popular and well-known as an intro to "white privilege" for white people. There would be certain ironies in using it as the guideline for terminology because it speaks as white. groupuscule (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just found a masters' thesis titled "White privilege: a history of the concept"—should be very useful to us in our endeavors here. This thesis says that McIntosh was key in popularizing the concept with the knapsack essay in 1987, but that the term has a longer history of historical use, starting with legal privileges like suffrage. groupuscule (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Apostle12, yes, that is the one. If you want to read more, you could do worse than browse the Google Scholar results for Peggy McIntosh. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Just read Bennett's masters' thesis, and I must say that the quality of the work is very low. Many uncorrected spelling and grammatical errors distract from the points being made, but far more troubling is the author's blind logic: Bennett assumes that disparities in outcome MUST be the result of a continuation of anti-people-of-color attitudes. Nowhere, for example, is personal responsibility mentioned. Reading this author, one might conclude that even the great disparity between whites and blacks in venereal disease rates, especially HIV infection, might also be the result of "white privilege." Example after example is given--graffiti-covered trains serving black ghetto areas are blamed on the unwillingness of supervisors to commit funds to cleaning them up (hey, maybe the people living in these areas deface the cars, unlike the people living in white middle-class neighborhoods), high crime rates in black neighborhoods are blamed on indifferent police who "let" crime flourish rather than trying to stop it (hey, maybe the people living in these areas are more prone to criminality and more tolerant of criminality among their peers). Example after example, with barely even a qualifier that might admit the possibility that different outcomes can have many causes OTHER than "white privilege."

Also missing, in the most glaring way, is the fact that many people of color (whole groups of them, not just a few) are doing quite well thank you. They seem not to be much affected by "white privilege." The student body at the University of California at Berkeley is disproportionately asian (I do not capitalize the names of racial groups), far out of proportion to the percentage of asians living in California. By comparison, whites are underrepresented. Relatively few blacks and latinos gain admittance now that race-based affirmative action is illegal in California--those who do attend the UC campuses are admitted on merit. (And their academic achievements will be respected accordingly.) It is simply inconceivable that someone on high is orchestrating these disparities among racial groups, consciously or unconsciously. And it's not just UC attendance--asians outperform whites in terms of income, life expectancy, and many other key indicators. Maybe, just maybe, this has to do with the direction that asian culture has taken--emphasizing personal discipline, education, family ties, and responsible behavior. "Whiteness" or "coloredness" has nothing to do with it, and the vast majority of Americans have moved beyond this archaic sort of thinking.

"White privilege" may be a real phenomenon to a limited degree, but until the level of scholarship in this area becomes more incisive and less committed to inducing guilt among white people, many will be prone to discount "white privilege" as a serious topic of discussion. Perhaps the article would do well to include commentary from critics of "white privilege." Apostle12 (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As I've offered repeatedly in this discussion, I think you are probably the editor best equipped to write such a section, and I would be happy to assist, should you ever decide to dig up some scholarship on it. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. Thanks for your encouragement.Apostle12 (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a comment to make here that would definitely be O.R. if it were injected into the article, however it occurs to me that the "white/people of color" dichotomy that we have been discussing is artificially loaded. The basic premise of this dichotomy is "white skin good/colored skin bad." But what we are really discussing is people of many different racial heritages--northern European, eastern European, southern European, African, Native American, Indian (from India) and Asian. The distinctions get pretty muddy--Are southern Europeans "people of color?" Those from Spain? Those from Portugal? Those from Italy? Those from Greece? Or must these peoples (especially Spaniards and Portuguese) have mixed with native American tribes to become "latino" before they can be considered "people of color?"

What offends me about the "white" in white privilege is that it is much too fuzzy. Latinos from Brazil, and especially lighter-skinned latinos from Mexico, consider themselves "white," and "white privilege" in Mexico is almost certainly a more defined phenomenon that it is in the United States--a very high premium is put on light skin in Mexican culture.

Similarly, when we refer to all other groups than northern Europeans as "people of color," this becomes too varied a moniker to mean much of anything. Using "Caucasion" and opposing this term to "people of other racial heritages" would be more accurate. But we don't get to reinvent the history of the academic discussion concerning "white privilege."

All this makes me unsure how this article should be developed. The article seems to be a combined effort; it introduces the term "white privilege" in the context of an academic discussion. Yet very soon it breaks into a discussion of "white privilege" as a defined phenomenon. For example, the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede (still unsourced, by the way), goes far beyond any academic discussion and presents "white privilege" as a reality :

However, white privilege may be seen as existing to some extent wherever the dominant culture is white, as in countries with legacies of colonialism such as South Africa, Australia, or New Zealand.

I think, as editors, we need to decide where we are going with this. Apostle12 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything for us to decide. I think we report what reliable sources have written about the subject. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course we need to decide. That's what editing is all about. Apostle12 (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Lede rewrite

Current:

Within the academic discipline of critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from their position in society as on the societal disadvantages that people of color experience. White privilege may be defined as the "unearned advantages of being white in a racially stratified society", and white privilege is seen as a powerful legacy of racial identity that is often unacknowledged by whites. Much of the English-language scholarship on white privilege focuses on American and European societal conditions, since inequality between whites and non-whites is a long-standing feature in these societies. However, white privilege may be seen as existing to some extent wherever the dominant culture is white, as in countries with legacies of colonialism such as South Africa and Australia.

White privilege differs from overt racism or prejudice, where a dominant group actively seeks to oppress or suppress other racial groups for its own advantage. Instead, theories of white privilege suggest that whites view their social, cultural, and economic experiences as a norm that everyone should experience, rather than as an advantaged position that is maintained at the expense of people of color. Scholars of critical race theory argue that this normative assumption constrains discussions of racial inequality: explanations of racial inequality are limited to factors specific to disadvantaged groups comprising people of color, who are viewed as having failed to achieve the norm. Thus solutions focus on what can be done to help people of color achieve the 'normal' standards experienced by whites.

Scholars who promote theories of white privilege claim that racial inequity cannot be resolved solely by looking at the life conditions of disadvantaged people of color. They suggest that solutions to problems of racial inequality can only be achieved by expanding the discussion to include the implicit societal advantages that whites enjoy.

Proposed:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to advantages that white people enjoy in some societies. It often connotes unspoken advantages, which white people may not realize they have. These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth, greater presumed social status, and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely. White privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving one's self as normal. It can be be compared and combined with male privilege.

Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept of "white privilege" to analyze how racism and racialized society affect the lives of whites. The term is often used in the United States and Europe but also applies in other places with histories of racial stratification after colonialism, such as South Africa and Australia. It was popularized by Peggy McIntosh through a 1987 article titled "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack". McIntosh's article suggests that white people need to understand how racial inequality includes benefits to them as well as disadvantages to others.

Looks good, but why say "in some societies" are there societies anywhere where people of White skin are the bottom of society? Know and unKnown, it is sometimes they pretend they do not understand. so both states need to be stated known and unknown to be benefiting from .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inayity (talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

the Ainu.

This lede looks fantastic btw

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I am confused. Who is proposing this change to the lede?

In any case I do not think it is an improvement. It refers to white privilege as an uncontested reality rather than a concept discussed within the academic discipline of critical race theory. And it goes further, adding male privilege to the mix. And "whiteness studies"......really?!

Much of value in the existing lede is eliminated entirely. This is a radical change that should not be implemented. Apostle12 (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I drafted this change and did not append a signature. I feel that this lede would do a good job of conveying the meaning of "white privilege" to a curious reader. I don't think anyone benefits from peppering the language with "alleged" or by restricting the scope of a widely-used term to a small academic discipline. I would note that the lede for "Love", for example, does not use mitigating language even though some people will tell you they don't believe in it. You don't see "supposed" or "alleged" in every other sentence in the lede for "God". I concur with UseTheCommandLine's invitation you to craft a section on criticisms of the white privilege concept. If this section existed, it would be reasonable to add some content on "criticism" to the lede! But again, I think it serves everyone if the concept itself is well articulated—along with the criticism—instead of muddled with mitigating language. Thanks & peace. groupuscule (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that a rather extensive section on criticisms used to appear in the article, however they have been systematically reduced and eliminated so that the article now has only one voice, a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Apostle12 (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that there are some people who benefit from peppering the lede with "alleged" and other mitigating language -- those people who want to violate WP:SOAP in order to try and undermine the legitimacy of the academic fields that utilize this concept. I don't think anyone else benefits from such language. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is any violation of WP:SOAP, it is on the part of those who want to promote the absolute legitimacy of the term "white privilege." The lede as presently constitituted has no mitigating language, save for the first clause of the first sentence. "Alleged" does not appear. Apostle12 (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

On multiple occasions, I have suggested that you marshal some reliable sources, in order to offer this view in a form consistent with WP's standards. Thus far you have failed to produce a single one, despite multiple commitments of help with writing such a section, and including a mention in the lede, from the very same people you are accusing of violating WP:SOAP.

I think that the proposed lede is good and should be run. Since you produced it, Groupuscule, I would be happy to see you swap out the language; though I am aware of WP:OWN, I think it only polite to allow you to make the actual changes you have proposed. However, I will be happy to do so myself if it doesn't matter to you. Apostle12, to once again reiterate, I think we all agree you are more than welcome to add to the lede, should you ever come across reliable sources reflecting your viewpoints. I have made some efforts to search for scholarship of this type but have come up quite short, which could be for any number of reasons.

I note that the previous "criticism" section was two sentences, and contained two references, and both remain in the article. I think that a proper "criticism" section, in order to be significant enough to put a reference in the lede, should be substantially longer, at least a full paragraph. The lede is there to summarize the remainder of the article, after all.

I would very much like to urge everyone to pay attention to the other parts of the article, which need some work. I need to take my own advice, certainly, and will hopefully get some time to do so in the near future.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

IIRC older criticism sections suffered from problems of undue weight and extensive content that was supported by unreliable sources or by no sources at all. (Apostle12, please follow these links and note that we have to consider more than just NPOV when determining whether to include the source.) As for the proposed lead, I appreciate it for its brevity and clarity and fully support its inclusion in the article. Thank you for the hard work, Groupuscule. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't see "supposed" or "alleged" in every other sentence in the lede for "God". That is an excellent point, considering that in the case of God the vast majority of people in the relevant field (i.e. philosophy) are atheists, and in the case of white privilege it is hard to find a relevant authority who doubts that it exists. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Those who doubt "white privilege" exists, or even those who believe the importance of "white privilege" has been exaggerated, by definition never become "relevant authorities" in the field. Apostle12 (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are being literal, this is wrong; there is nothing inherent in the position that white privilege exists that makes those who espouse it unqualified. If you are insinuating that your fellow editors refuse to admit anyone who says that the importance of white privilege has been exaggerated, this is obviously wrong; the Shelby Steele quote has been a part of the article for ages. (FWIW I added that part myself.)

At one point I was the sort of editor who could be easily beaten down by someone who said that this article needed to include statements for which they had no reliable sources, and I looked for those sources myself. I am no longer that editor, because (a) I deserve more respect than that, and (b) I have already done the search, and my best efforts were fruitless. If you want something included in the article, accusing your fellow editors of bad faith, lashing out at them, or insulting them is not the way to do it. The way to do it is, as some of your other fellow editors have told you already, is to conduct the search yourself and find enough reliable sources to meet the due weight threshold.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It is you who are insinuating that I am insinuating anything. I am objecting to your attitude; that is all. Apostle12 (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Integration in progress

I have no idea why someone would create a separate section to tick for tack attack points made above it. So I have integrated the objects (hedged) without the "department of this and speaking a this seminar" and other flamboyant decorative. Also note just because someone says something does not mean we include it, it must be notable. An anecdotal recollection of one person experiences, and one man says sections are out. An entire section for one persons POV. Straw man arguments are out, like "I am anti-racist, how can I profit from White privilege?" (white privilege does not mean the benefactor of the White skin is themselves a racist!!) --Inayity (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Integration is fine, provided there are appropriate places to accomodate the material. There were no "straw man arguments" in the material I added--what you wrote is, in itself, an example of setting up a "straw man." Apostle12 (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Peggy McIntosh

Apostle12, as has been pointed out to you before, Dr. Peggy McIntosh's piece is one of the most widely cited[3] sources on white privilege, which is prima facie evidence that what she says deserves to be given weight in the article. Please do not take a cavalier approach to deleting content that references her work, and consider discussing the matter here first. It does not matter if any of us thinks there is sufficient evidence for the statements contained in her work; what matters is that she says is an indication of authoritative viewpoints on the matter. Please review Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliability, and due weight. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of McIntosh (whose ideas I agree are important for this article): I found an interesting critique of McIntosh and "whiteness studies" on the grounds that people of colour have been describing whiteness and identifying white privilege without being credited with founding a discipline. (Sadly not surprising at all.) Not sure if this material would moreso belong here or at whiteness studies. groupuscule (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this. FWIW there have been similar criticisms of Tim Wise. On the surface it seems this is more relevant to whiteness studies, but it cannot hurt to further discuss what it means for white privilege. Also, in the absence of Wikipedia guidelines to the contrary I think this should encourage us to be mindful of how and to what extent the voices of people of color are (not) being represented in the sources used to support the article's content. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Pro or against?

Who is pro white privilege and who is against it? It's the fundementals really. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Adam

Hi, Adam. Welcome to the white privilege talk page. If you have not already done so, you might want to take a look at the talk page guidelines. In particular please note that the purpose of this page is to discuss how to improve the article; it is not for discussing the topic (white privilege) itself or what positions people take on the topic. Do you have any thoughts on how we can improve the article? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

Thank you, Apostle12, for putting together the criticism section. I would like to encourage you to provide sources that are more compliant with WP:SOURCES, WP:IRS (Specifically WP:NEWSORG), and i think quite importantly, WP:FUC since substantial quotes are taken from non-free sites. Despite them being blockquoted, I think referencing and summarizing the original scholarship that these individuals have produced is a much better course of action than simply quoting non-free news media sources. Once we have something more substative, we can break it out into the individual sections, per WP:CRIT, WP:NPV and WP:UNDUE, the latter of which has been noted to be a problem, and i think applies here given the thinnness of actual scholarship. Good starting points, but this is not the whole story, and I would encourage you (Apostle12) to keep digging. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure how WP:FUC might apply here. Could you please explain. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

You have used verbatim quotes-of-quotes from an interview, from a news organization, rather than sourcing scholarly material summarizing it for a general audience, and providing references.

The bar is quite high for using non-free material, as it probably should be given current norms regarding copyright. It also can help to refine one's argument; if your summary is "this person has made comments on a tv program to this effect" rather than blockquoting, then that highlights the fact that you should probably do more work on finding scholarly material to support your argument.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Apostle12, if I believed you had finally done substantial work in finding reliable sources to support the claims you believe belong here, I would be as enthusiastic UseTheCommandLine is. However, I remember most of the content to be old material, which was deleted because of issues with unreliable source, sources given undue weight, and sources that upon closer examination did not support the claims that were being made. When I deleted some of this content (I was not the only one deleting questionable material at that time), I often recognized that Wikipedia is a work in progress and believed that my fellow editors had added the content in good faith and gave them an opportunity to provide better references before the content was deleted. In some cases no one -- not even the person who inserted the material -- came to the defense of the words that had been added. In resurrecting this content you have shown profound disregard for Wikipedia's policy on consensus and other policies. I will await feedback from our fellow editors before deciding how to handle this situation. In the meantime I strongly encourage you to do as UseTheCommandLine has suggested and dig for better references so that we do not have reason to delete it wholesale. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not all of my references can be considered unreliable. Some of the old material seemed to have been deleted because of dead links, so I found links that are alive and current. I did not just copy old material; I used some old material to provide leads to a fresh take on the issues involved, and I rewrote the entries, providing current links. Some of the material is entirely new, and some material constitutes a more coherent exposition of the views expressed (e.g. Steele's entry). If you go over yesterday's discussion, no mention was made that the "Criticism" section as it appeared in 2009-2010 was eliminated for due cause; in fact it was described as much less extensive than it actually was. Meanwhile, since I might suggest you review WP:OWN, especially referring to your statement "I will await feedback from our fellow editors before deciding how to handle this situation." Apostle12 (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that at the very least most, and perhaps all, of the sources you have added do not meet WP:SOURCE guidelines. I was inclined to give the benefit of the doubt simply because it appeared you had done some work in trying to be constructive in your edits (at the same time acknowledging that deletions can be productive in therms of WP's mission). I think a temporary criticism section would be fine (WP:IGNORE) if it furthered the mission, which is an encyclopedic article, and my rationale was a criticism section could be a kind of staging area, where we could then break out the individual claims and sources into their more appropriate sections.

Even though I don't have time to dig through the history as much as I'd like right now, if what Marie Paradox says is true about these sources being previously referenced and then deleted, then I have no other choice than to conclude that you are disruptively editing. Since we have already had a number of issues with you, including referral to WP:DRN I think the next step is probably an RfC/U? I am keen to prevent an edit war, so I would like to believe that Apostle12 would be willing to listen to reason, and that progression through this process will be unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UseTheCommandLine (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am not disruptively editing; all I want is a better, more NPOV article that expresses the full range of viewpoints re: "White Privilege." As mentioned, I had every reason to believe that the previously deleted information might have been deleted because of dead links or because it was poorly written; I provided fresh links, and rewrote as necessary. Surely you cannot seriously be suggesting that editors familiarize themselves with the full history of previous edits before adding material to an article; if that were the case all Wikipedia editing would stop immediately. As for previous "issues" with me, these seem mostly to be based on the fact that I disagree with your approach in this article; to wit, you seem to want the article written with a single, white-privilege-positive voice, and you brook no disagreement. I am perfectly willing to listen to reason--that does not mean I will always agree with your conclusions, or you with mine. Apostle12 (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I mean no offense by this, but your assurances mean little in the face of your behavior.

I also think you are over-personalizing this, which seems to be a consistent pattern for you based, again, on your behavior. Your entire recent history of editing this article started with a WP:3RR violation, and the fact that you make assertions that other editors' issues with your behavior are based in disagreement with your stated positions suggests that you will continue your disruptive behavior.

This is an issue because, as I keep pointing out, there are other sections of the article that probably deserve substantial revision. until yesterday your efforts were focused on minor, superficial edits to the lede and lengthy discussions on talk pages, both here and personal, rather than doing the work necessary to produce a high quality article. This sucks the air out of other editors' attempts to improve the article, because they are frequently dealing with you and your behavior. You do not appear to be interested in interacting meaningfully with your fellow editors, and retain a hostile attitude despite our repeated, civil or even conciliatory attempts to help you be more constructive in your edits.

While I am not suggesting that all editors familiarize themselves with the entire history of an article, it took me no more than 5 minutes (if you need additional detail, please post on my talk page) to find out the previous criticism section links had been integrated elsewhere in the article, and i think that, particularly with controversial positions, it is important to at least make a passing effort to not just find proper sources but to integrate them in a way that is not so obviously, again, a violation of WP:SOAP. There are loads of weasel words in the critcism section you offered, and we've already had this discussion, even sending it to WP:DRN, so all i can conclude is that you're either unable or unwilling to make a serious effort to edit this article in partnership with your fellow editors, rather than as an opponent.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You wrote, "Your entire recent history of editing this article started with a WP:3RR violation." Untrue; I have never edited in violation of WP: 3RR. Apostle12 (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

While you are at it, Apostle12, if you want to retain the content you have reinserted, then I think it is only fair for you to explain how the issues that originally led to their deletion have been resolved. For example, if material was deleted because we did not find it reliable, you could point us to evidence that it is. I do not think it would be fair to make your fellow editors do a lot of busy work we have already done, if you are going to insist that the new Criticism section remains. You can find previous discussion about some of the sources on this Talk page. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You not supposed to put a Criticism section on wikipedia as a section of critique violates NPOV. All of that undue content and fringe justification and denial of privilege needs to be within the main body of the article, or it can all be deleted. WP:STRUCTURE The article on racism doesnt have it, no A class article does.--Inayity (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Two editors, specifically UseTheCommandLine and Marie Paradox, have been suggesting that I write a "Criticism" section for some weeks now. In fact I have been challenged by both editors for not writing a "Criticism" section. Following their suggestion, and pursuant to their challenges, I wrote such a section. Yet now there are objections that no such section should even exist. Which is it? Apostle12 (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note comment by editor EyePhoenix on March 12, 2012:

Criticism

What happened to the "Criticism" section of this article? Like it's parent "critical race theory", "white privilege" is controversial and debated. Yet very few of the challenges once included remain in this article. I didn't have time to examine the entire history, but it has the appearance of, pardon the phrase, some whitewashing by select editors. EyePhoenix (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously some editors are not so pleased that the article has been stripped of effective challenge. And EyePhoenix is correct: "White privilege" is controversial and debated. I know of no other way to introduce such challenges than to include them in a separate section, which I have renamed "White privilege theory under challenge," which is more to the point than broad-based "Criticism." Apostle12 (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Disclosure: I have contacted several editors who have voiced support for a more NPOV approach and asked them for their input on this very important issue. Apostle12 (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The one rule that trumps everything is the rules of Wikipedia, you cannot have a critique section. Do you notice that critique section almost consumes the topic. might as well start another article called White Privilege does not really exist(I am joking cuz then someone will do it. it should be balance, notable not Tick for Tack. I think you should read the rules Do you think changing the title changes what it is? A Dog by any other name still barks and chases sticks.. --Inayity (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit hasty. Bold, revert, discuss. There might be a better staging area for this than in the article itself? UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I changed the name of the section because I thought the new name more appropriate; obviously I am not hoping to slide by on anything, and my goal is total transparency. Find myself in agreement with UseTheCommandLine that the present section might be used as a staging area. Hard to imagine how the content might be included in other sections, however, since the article as currently written allows no room for the fact that there is widespread doubt regarding the legitimacy of "white privilege theory." Apostle12 (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, meaning no offense, but you have thus far failed to marshal the necessary scholarship to support the "widespread" part of that statement. That is exactly what I and others have been pressing you to do, support that statement with the appropriate sources.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Apostle12, I have never suggested making a criticism section. It is my understanding that though criticism sections are not outright forbidden, they are often strongly discouraged for a variety of reasons. The old criticism was tagged, because editors here wanted to see the material it contained integrated into other sections (and that is what ended up happening to the well-sourced material it contained). When you recreated the criticism section, you were flouting consensus in more than one way.

Even if not all of the material you have included is undesirable (I am not convinced that is the case), why have you included so much that is? Inserting a lot of cited references in the article in the hopes that some small portion of them will be acceptable according to the guidelines is an efficient way to edit. And based on your responses so far, it will be your fellow editors -- not you -- who are left with the burden of sifting for gold, it seems that this is also a very inconsiderate way to edit.

And, yes, the existence of white privilege is "controversial and debated", but does any of the debate occur outside lay discussions and the fringes of academia? If you hope to convince us that the answer is, "Yes," you need to take an approach very different from the one you have been taking so far.

For a variety of reasons, including the fact that your response to the problems with the section you have created has been to remain tendentious here instead of fixing the problems, my recommendation to our fellow editors is that we delete the entire section. And here are some recommendations for you:

1. If you want to make radical changes to the article, first post a draft of the article you want to see to your user space, solicit comments from your fellow editors, and give them enough time to respond before making the changes. (I am not sure what the ettiquette around this is. I often impose a rule on myself that I will wait at least 48 hours before making an edit I suspect will not be received well -- or even one that is likely to be received well, if the changes are far-reaching. In practice it ends up being significantly longer than 48 hours.)
2. Be your first critic. Personally I take measures to insure that unreliable sources do not get into the article, like checking to see that the source or its author can be found with Google Scholar. (More accurately, this tends to me the first place I go to find sources, so the problem is pre-empted.) You should also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliable sources, and original research and follow them. When I feel that other editors are not doing this, I become irritated, and I imagine I am not the only one.
3. Brace yourself for the possibility that you are not going to find enough reliable sources that make claims as bold as, "White privilege does not exist." This article has had a lot of intelligent, hard-working editors who have searched and found relatively little in the way of such content.
4. Take a look at the sort of edits that have been welcome here and consider putting more of your time and efforts into changes of the same sort. For example, some editors who felt the article was unfairly biased changed the wording to make it less POV to their eye (see Words to watch), and these edits were seldom, if ever, challenged. (But note that if a viewpoint is supported by the vast majority of relevant authorities, Wikipedia requires that we present it as authoritative.)

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

- I agree with Apostle that the article is without objectivity or criticism. It seems a waste to argue whether the criticism should exist in a separate section or be incorporated throughout the article. The important point is - it is absent. Whether there is a great deal of 'reliable' sources of criticism of this subject at this time, the article still reads as an accepted scientific theory and not political rhetoric. As I see it, therein lies the problem. There should be more challenges to the reliability of the largely unscientific sources used to create this article. But since these politics have secured their place in Academia they are now accepted. I don't see much within Wikipedia's rules to address this, so at this time good writing that avoids Original Research may be the only way to balance this problem. It would sure be nice to see editors be a little less contemptuous and more helpful in their discussion. EyePhoenix (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that EyePhoenix (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Lede

I've put back a passage from an earlier version of the article which gives a much more objective description of the theory of white privilege. It is written in the voice of an encyclopaedic narrator, and does not take any side in the debate as to whether "white privilege" is a valid or useful concept. It should be acceptable to everyone involved, as it clearly and concisely states what the theory is, and makes to hints as to its validity. This is important, as the previous lede stated the view of critical race theorists as fact. This is not Quantum Mechanics or the Theory of Evolution, but rather a concept in the social sciences which is not universally agreed upon, and which does not have anything approaching the same level of certainty as scientific theories; let's therefore refrain from stating its conclusions in an authoritative manner in the lede, but rather simply describe what the theory holds. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with this bunch of editors!Apostle12 (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is, above you, a protracted discussion about this, if you want to extend that debate it is one thing. it is not solved by adding back in reasonable doubt, esp when there is so much TK page on it. see Male privilege (which seems pretty beyond maybe - maybe not. I dont think after all those points were made we plan to return to " maybe it exist" It may not be Quantum Physics, but it is strange you talk about the Theory of Evolution-- is that now a fact? Discuss first as the lede was the source of much debate. --Inayity (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As it is, the lede is unencyclopaedic. It states the views of a section of academia as fact. Why is it not enough to just state what their views are? Why do we have to lend the voice of the encyclopaedia to them? The lede, as I modified it, was very fair to the theory, not disparaging at all, and stated the views of the theory concisely. We need to change the lede back to a neutral form; the version I posted is, I believe, a good start. (P.S.: Both quantum mechanics and evolution are about as close to scientific fact as you can get.) -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the religion of Islam a fact to everyone? But when you read that article it states the fundamentals of that belief as they are facts within the construction of the word "Islam." It does not insert mitagatory language for the purpose of some mythical encyclopedic NPOV. And that I believe is how wikipedia works. What is the definition of the thing in NPOV language. What you are suggest has nothing to do with NPOV. b.c the tone of this article is identical to the tone of all A-class articles across wikipedia on similar topics. See Ontology for example. (off topic) Evolution is anything but close to scientific for most people of faith, which is only 90% of planet Earth.--Inayity (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at the lede for Ontology, as you suggested, because it is helpful in considering our differing views on the lede for this article. The Ontology article begins, "Ontology (from onto- ...) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations." The lede makes no statements of fact, does not advocate a particular ontology, and simply states what the focus of the field is. Now take the lede I proposed: "In critical race theory, white privilege (or white skin privilege) is a set of advantages that are believed to be enjoyed by white people beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.)." This lede makes no statement of fact, but simply states what the concept of "white (skin) privilege" is in Critical Race Theory. Now take the lede you support: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to advantages that white people enjoy in many societies beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc)." This lede takes a particular academic position and states it as fact. Neither ontology nor the lede I proposed do that. As a comparison, take the article on Postmodernism. In the lede, you will find this definition: "In essence, postmodernism is based on the position that reality is not mirrored in human understanding of it, but is rather constructed as the mind tries to understand its own personal reality." However, it does not state, "Postmodernism is the recognition that reality is not mirrored in human understanding of it, but is rather constructed as the mind tries to understand its own personal reality." This is essentially the argument between us. I would like to see something akin to the first description of postmodernism - the one used in the article - and you would like to see something akin to the second description of Postmodernism, which states it as fact. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Thucydides411 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

- I have also seen this, but I do not believe it is a bad faith canvass. --Inayity (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no comment on whether the apparent canvassing was done in bad faith or on much else beyond what I have already said at Apostle12's Talk page.[4] -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but at the end he said he was not coming back to this article.But I guess that didnt exclude getting others to come to it.--Inayity (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked others, including Thucydides411, to consider returning to editing before I myself withdrew. I will continue to monitor this discussion, however I do not intend to resume editing until a more inclusive, NPOV attitude prevails. Apostle12 (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that a few editors are already trying to disqualify me from the discussion. Note that I expressed interest in working on this article on 16 July 2012. You can see this earlier on this Talk page. I hope that the accusations of canvassing were not made in bad faith, and that the editor who raised this issue simply missed my earlier post. Now that we have this behind us, let's move on to a substantive discussion of the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thucydides411, welcome to the discussion. Here's my take on these changes:

The theory of evolution is widely accepted by scholars and experts in the field, and fairly controversial among the general population. I believe that if you search the scholarly and popular literature on white privilege, you will find a similar pattern of agreement and disagreement. The existence of something called white privilege is the overwhelming consensus of people who study race relations. Indeed, it is the overwhelming consensus of people who study people, so much so that I also disagree with the restriction "within critical race theory". "White privilege" may be discussed "within critical race theory", but it is also discussed—and was originated—without critical race theory. This qualification, which has long been un-sourced, is therefore pretty misleading.

I would be very happy to see more editors contributing to this article by adding sourced content to any part of the article. It would be great if you wanted to tackle white privilege in Brazil, or research more about the history of the term "white privilege". I don't, however, see a lot of value in resurrecting a debate over the lede by insisting on the same unsourced claim that was used previously. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a mischaracterization of what the theory of white privilege is. It is indeed a concept which originated within Critical Race Theory. The idea that nonwhites are discriminated against in certain societies and under certain circumstances is not controversial, and has existed for a very long time. Similarly, the idea that, for example, poor whites have often been pitted against poor minorities in a way that benefits neither group has been thoroughly discussed in academia (note that we would still not state this idea as fact within the encyclopaedia, even though it has much broader support than critical race theory).

However, the following concept is not generally accepted in academia:

"White privilege is a set of advantages that are believed to be enjoyed by white people beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.). Theorists differentiate it from racism or prejudice because, they say, a person who may benefit from white privilege is not necessarily racist or prejudiced and may be unaware of having any privileges reserved only for whites. It sometimes connotes unspoken advantages, which, it is argued, white people may not realize they have. These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth, greater presumed social status, and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely. White privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving one's self as normal."

It certainly has a school of supporters, who are cited throughout this article, but it also has many detractors, who object particularly to the theory's rejection of the Enlightenment, and to its assertion that poor whites also benefit from what is termed "white privilege." Take, for example, this scholarly critique of Critical Race Theory, which takes objection to several of the sources cited throughout this article: "Race, Equality and the Rule of Law: Critical Race Theory's Attack on the Promises of Liberalism". Another prominent critique of the concept of identity in politics is here: "Identity Politics and the Left". You can be sure that Hobsbawm did not agree with the concept of white skin privilege presented here.

Theories in social science rarely have the support necessary to state them as fact. While in certain areas, there are groups of academics who reference one another and espouse the same idea, you will find other groups who reference one another and espouse a contradictory idea. In this case, you will find those who argue that the defining issue in what in the cultural left calls "privilege" is actually class. You will also find those who argue that poor Appalachian whites cannot be said to be privileged above, for example, middle-class blacks, as the latter enjoy higher social standing and regard. In other words, the theory we are discussing, which is narrower than what you are depicting, does not enjoy the universal support of academia.

This is very different from the case of successful theories in the natural sciences, which do achieve near-universal support, due to the more straightforward means available to scientists of testing their theories. This is why the situation regarding white skin privilege is not analogous to that surrounding evolution. You would be hard-pressed indeed to find a biologist of any stature who denies evolution, but within the fields of American social history and legal theory, you would not have much difficulty at all.

For this reason, it is important that we not state the conclusions of the academics cited in this article as fact. There is nothing wrong or disparaging about presenting theories in social science as such. We can say that white privilege is a concept used by Harris, Lipsitz, Roediger, and others, and explain what the concept entails. That should be fair, and I see little reason for any editors here to object to such an approach. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

For those looking for evidence of a scholarly debate over white privilege, Eric Arnesen's article, "Whiteness and the Historians' Imagination" (sorry about the paywall, but most journal articles will be behind one), and the ensuing spate of responses [5] [6] and responses to those replies [7] [8] are a good place to start. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thucydides441, thank you for civilly making your case for changing the lead. I think that if you review the history of the article, you will find that edits that consist of changing claims like "X" to "So and so says that X" are among the most readily accepted changes to the article. But if you are going to make dramatic changes to the article, as by changing the lead, I for one would appreciate it if you followed groupuscule's precedent and post it here first so that your fellow editors have the opportunity to weigh in on it. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thucydides, thanks for taking the time to craft such a detailed response. I second Marie Paradox on your civility. Here are my thoughts:

• The articles by Hobsbawm and Pyle are relevant only tangentially to the question of whether white privilege exists. To my eyes, they seem to discuss strategies for legal and social change. We could make these relevant to the article if we wanted to add a section about combating white privilege. However, the question the concept's utility in legal settings does not bear on the issue of its social reality. I do not understand your claim that believing in the existence of white privilege constitutes a "rejection of the Enlightenment". It feels to me that you are saddling the "white privilege" concept with baggage that comes from Critical Race Theory as an outlook on legal systems.
• I repeat that although critical race theorists certainly use the term "white privilege", this term is trans-disciplinary and used throughout the humanities and social sciences. We have multiple sources that discuss the history of the term white privilege, and don't attribute or limit it to "critical race theory".
• I agree with you that "theories in social science have the support necessary to state them as fact". But I think at this point, the comparison of "white privilege" with a scientific theory breaks down. White privilege is a phenomenon, not a theory; it neither predicts nor explains, so much as describes. While the causes, consequences, and appropriate responses to white privilege may be controversial, its existence is not—again, among scholars. Compare, for example, feudalism, a social arrangement whose existence Wikipedia seems confident in, even though the definition of it is more in flux than is the definition of white privilege. Also see: slavery, deindustrialization, and ethnic group for social concepts that do not require this type of qualification.
• You state that I "would not have much difficulty at all" in finding scholars who dispute the existence of "white privilege"—yet in fact I do encounter this difficulty. I find literally hundreds of articles and books (and even academic journals) predicated on the idea that white privilege exists, and I cannot recall encountering scholarly publications arguing the contrary. Hobsbawm and Pyle don't discuss "white privilege".
• I agree that there are variations and exceptions to white privilege, that white privilege is modulated by class, geographic location, and countless other factors. I think it would make a good deal of sense to discuss these modulations in the article and in the lede.

Peace, groupuscule (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Additional scholarly articles, appended while I was writing this response, look promising—thanks for posting those. They may have greater bearing on whiteness studies, but I'm guessing they contain material related to white privilege also. groupuscule (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a disconnect between how white privilege is being discussed in this Talk page, and how it is discussed in the article. In the article, it is discussed in the context of Critical Race Theory and "whiteness" theory, focusing on the ideas of Theodore Allen and Noel Ignatiev, who worked on Critical Race Theory, and David Roediger, who kicked off the more modern area of "whiteness studies." The article is not merely about the idea that white people sometimes are the beneficiaries of societal advantages - it is about the theories of the people mentioned above. The articles which I have provided specifically critique these fields; Pyle attacks the field of Critical Legal Studies, Hobsbawm criticizes the idea that the group classifications used in the field are well defined, and Arnesen severely takes Roediger to task for his interpretation of American history in terms of the concept of whiteness. The views of Critical Race Theory and Whiteness studies are controversial in academia, and the theory of white privilege is a concept within these fields. It is important for the lede to put the concept in the proper context - the context which the body of the article itself presently gives. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I want to quote what I got from user:Groupuscule "White privilege" may be discussed "within critical race theory", but it is also discussed—and was originated—'without' critical race theory. Inayity (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This is in contradiction with the what the article says. The existence of racism is acknowledged nearly universally, and racism and discrimination are concepts which originated outside the fields of whiteness studies and critical race theory. The concept of white privilege is distinct from the recognition of racism, and originated within critical race theory and was further elaborated upon in whiteness theory, as the article states:

"Then, in 1965, drawing from that insight, and inspired by the Civil Rights movement, Theodore W. Allen began a pioneering forty-year analysis of “white skin privilege,” “”white race” privilege, and “white” privilege in a call he drafted for a “John Brown Commemoration Committee” that urged “White Americans who want government of the people” and “by the people” to “begin by first repudiating their white skin privileges.”[20] The groundbreaking pamphlet, "White Blindspot," authored by Allen and Noel Ignatin [Noel Ignatiev] in the late 1960s focused on the struggle against "white skin privilege” and significantly influenced Students for a Democratic Society and sectors of the “new left.”.[21] In 1974-1975 Allen extended his analysis to the colonial period with his ground-breaking "Class Struggle and the Origin of Racial Slavery: The Invention of the White Race" in 1974/1975,[22] which ultimately grew into his seminal two-volume "The Invention of the White Race" in 1994 and 1997."

Later on (after quoting a passage by W. E. B. Du Bois often given as an inspiration for the concept of white privilege), the article continues,

"This concept was later taken up by David Roediger in his 1991 book, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class.[25] Theorists associated with the journal Race Traitor, such as editor Noel Ignatiev, argue that whiteness (as a marker of a social status within the United States) is conferred upon people in exchange for an expectation of loyalty to an oppressive social order. This loyalty has taken a variety of forms over time: suppression of slave rebellions, support of whites-only unions, and promotion for police brutality. Like currency, the value of this privilege depends on the reliability of a white appearance as a marker for social consent. These theorists argue that with enough "counterfeit whites" resisting racism and capitalism, the privilege of whiteness will be withdrawn and prompt an era of social redefinition."

This is how the article describes the origins and development of the concept, and I think that this part of the article does a decent job of portraying the meaning of the term, "white privilege." The definition you are arguing for here in the Talk page is different from the definition elaborated on by the article outside of the lede. This is important, as white privilege, as it is discussed in the article, is a controversial concept in academia. If it were just the recognition of the existence of racism, it would not be, but when it is extended to a theory of privileges from which whites benefit, it enters the territory of contested social science. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much Thucydides. Really appreciate the informed analysis. Perhaps you will be able successfully to revise the lede to reflect this more nuanced point of view. Apostle12 (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I like the approach you are taking to shaping the article to incorporate more academic viewpoints. If nothing else, the sources you have presented are of a different calibre than are typically offered on this page to support the view that white privilege does not exist. However, I am still left to wonder how much weight this view deserves, considering that Bell and Nkomo say that the concept of white privilege is embraced by most scholars of race relations (see the recently added reference), and taking a look at Google Scholar results still suggests that the view that white privilege denialism is still very much a minority viewpoint.

I think it is worth noting that apart from Subsection 2.1 ("History") most of the article is about the modern phenomenon of white privilege. Wouldn't focusing on white privilege as it is theorized in critical race theory require us to drastically revise the article? Would revising the "History" subsection to clarify its relationship to the rest of the article be a better way to go?

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Denialism?" As with Holocaust "deniers?" This is what I mean by "covert." Apostle12 (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I too think that the word "denialism" does not capture the issue. Within a certain school of social and historical analysis, "white privilege" is a widely used concept. For people who work mostly within this school of thought, i.e. neo-Marxism, postmodernism and critical theory, rejection of the idea of "white privilege" may indeed seem like denialism. It is important to remember, however, that outside of these areas of sociology and history, the term is not broadly accepted, and thinking on race and its role in history may be very different. My concern is that the lede of this article states that there exists a privilege bestowed upon "whites" generally in many societies, which is a very controversial idea within broader academia. This is not a question of whether racism and discrimination are acknowledged in academia - they are overwhelmingly. "Privilege" is a different concept, however, which finds use in a particular school or set of schools of academia. This doesn't weaken or water-down the article - it simply gives readers greater insight into the meaning of this term. The history section does a reasonable job right now of placing "white privilege" in its context, but the lede does not. The history section should be a guide for the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Apostle12 and Thucydides411, could you suggest some alternative ways to succinctly express "someone who believes white privilege does not exist"? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The virtue of succintness must be weighed against the vice of inaccuracy, especially the associative inaccuracy of "denier" or "denialism." There are those who do not believe "white privilege" exists, those who doubt that "white privilege" is significant, and those who object mainly to the "privilege" aspect of the term. Significant distortions result when these differing points of view are lumped together under a single moniker. Apostle12 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will refrain from using the term "denialism" in this context. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Marie Paradox, I just wanted to add one comment on what you said about the history section vs. the rest of the article. I actually think that the history section is the strongest section in the article, and the most focused. It deals specifically with the idea of "white privilege," while several other sections range out into related, but somewhat tangential topics. There are much more detailed articles on racial diparities in the United States (see, for example, Racial inequality in the United States). We should try to focus this article on its topic more closely. Some of this information would be very useful in this article, but as it is, the article seems to be flying off in tangents, losing its connection to the specific idea of "privilege." We can discuss this after we've decided what to do about the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not read everything but I am getting the sense that the term "White privilege" is being treated as an entirely academic term (like institutional racism once was).-correct me if i am reading wrong. since then it has been a part of every day speech. Its meaning is know to many educated people not only academics in a lab. I therefore will return to it being a WEIGHT issue. What ever WP meant when it was coined and what it means today (per usage in google) is not the same. So schools of thought, Marx is one area in which it is used right now, it is not the only area, it is a term used in various fashions and that term is overwhelming accepted as a valid term in the same way as the term racism (which evolved since it was coined). People deny the extent of White privilege but they do not deny the reality of the terms construction White +Privilege. The lede is fine w/o any water down.Inayity (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You're making a distinction between two different uses of the term "white privilege." One is in academia, where it is discussed largely in the context of critical theory, where the term originated and continues to find most of its use. The second use which you distinguish is in common parlance, where people may colloquially refer to "white privilege." Here, I agree in part with Marie Paradox's earlier statement that, "And, yes, the existence of white privilege is 'controversial and debated', but does any of the debate occur outside lay discussions and the fringes of academia?" Among the general population, i.e. outside of academia, the existence and validity of the term "white privilege" is indeed controversial and debated. Inside academia, the term finds use largely in critical race theory and whiteness theory. Outside of these schools of thought, it is a controversial concept. To understand the dynamics of the debate, Arnesen's article and the responses, which I posted earlier, are a useful starting point. I can post more on this later (when time permits), but it would be helpful for you to familiarize yourself with that set of articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before, the overwhelming focus on the lede here is causing the rest of the article, some sections of which are in substantial need of revision, to be neglected. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I might point out that until mid-November the lede read as follows:

Within the academic discipline of critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from their position in society as on the societal disadvantages that people of color experience. White privilege may be defined as the "unearned advantages of being white in a racially stratified society", and white privilege is seen as a powerful legacy of racial identity that is often unacknowledged by whites.[1] Much of the English-language scholarship on white privilege focuses on American and European societal conditions, since inequality between whites and non-whites is a long-standing feature in these societies. However, white privilege may be seen as existing to some extent wherever the dominant culture is white, as in countries with legacies of colonialism such as South Africa[2] and Australia[3][4][5].

The recent, wholesale elimination of the previous lede, and the substitution of the current one, has led to this intensive discussion. Apostle12 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Makes no difference, that old version was rubbish. It is certainly not exclusive to CRT. And I agree with Commandline. time to move on to the bulk of the article cuz this laborious debate is going no where fast. And this happens all the time on wiki, fight over a lead at the expense of the bigger battle. the proposed additions are very low in significance, Weight issues and very fine points. and add nothing to the understanding of WP. Inayity (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That claim seems a bit tendentious, given that the focus predates that change, and can be traced directly to your own lede edits, which I might also remind you were the focus of a discussion at WP:DRN. At any rate, it would be really super great if we could all just try for a few days to make other changes to the body of the article, in order to make it better, before coming back to the lede. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I second the motion; recent discussions about the lead have not brought us any closer to finding a compromise. And haven't we been trying to make a lead that reflects the body of the article? Perhaps once we have worked on other parts it will be clearer to all of us what the lead ought to say. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to stay on topic for the moment. The lede is important, and I've raised what I view as an important issue. Specifically, I agree with others here (Marie Paradox and Apostle) that the concept of "white privilege" is "controversial and debated" among the public. I have also raised the question of its acceptance outside of critical theory, which is varied. I think we should address these issues before moving on. That does not preclude anyone from improving the article in other ways, but I think we should continue this discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:PERFECTION, the lead is not a train crash per wiki standards.--Inayity (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The lede states a controversial academic construct as fact. I'm not arguing for the article to be deleted, but for the lede to be accurate and impartial. It currently fails on both counts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Good Food for thought Tim Wise:

Have a look at Tim Wise he is not mentioned in this article (correction this book is in Bib) and I think he is one of the main people today who actively talk about WP. So much so that he admits that the reason he can talk about WP is because he profits from WP, and many African voices are shut out b/c ppl like him have WP. White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son--Inayity (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have read much of White Like Me. The problem is that the bulk of it is anecdotal, which can be an effective way to make a point, but is not especially useful to editors trying to make a well-referenced article. It does contain the occasional gem, but in my opinion it is a better use of our time to read the academic papers accessible through Google Scholar. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

WP and WS (privilege and supremacy) section needed

I am noticing from reading (mainly African authors, who have a more personal experience with this issue).Ani That the two terms co-exist WP and WS. And a section may be needed to give some pro opinions on this, b.c often WP and WS are interchangeable, one helping the other. Also in some of the sections what is being discussed is WP which creates WS, and WS create WP. Inayity (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to ignore the fact that "white supremacy" as an ideology no longer enjoys any traction in contemporary America. It was roundly rejected, mainly by progressive whites, beginning with the American civil rights movement and today is promulgated only by a few fringe groups.

The dismantling of institutionalized racism was a direct result of wholesale rejection of the ideology of white supremacy, and this dismantling was complete by at least 1980. In fact the only institutionalized racism that exists in the United States today operates to the disadvantage of white people in the form of affirmative action and other programs that grant special favors to certain groups based on race--those of African American, Latino, Native American and Asian descent. It should be noted, however, that some Asian groups are specifically excluded from receiving these advantages, since they are considered "model minorities" whose educational and economic performance outstrips whites. For example, at Lowell High School in San Francisco, CA people of Japanese and Chinese descent must perform at extraordinarily high levels to be admitted, while those of Vietnamase or (especially) Hmong descent are favored for admission.

Contemporary systems of institutionalized racism exist in both the public and private sector, and they are designed to ensure that whites are denied any advantage, even if they come from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

It should be noted that one purpose of the Jim Crow laws that took hold in the American South after the Civil War was to provide "affirmative action" for white workers who were having a difficult time competing with newly freed, and highly skilled, blacks. It seems to me that systems of institutionalized racism always result in injustice, and backlash is a predictable result. Apostle12 (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong by that sounded a lot like your private opinion to me. (not a problem as I like to learn new stuff) But isnt Tim Wise progressive White. BTW, have a peep at all the books new and old discussing it. and also remember this article is not only for Americans and is not limited to the African American experience. Also remember there is a link (that I am not forgetting;historical or otherwise)which is very important, as they are synonymous terms.--Inayity (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The above is, to the best of my knowledge, an accurate disposition of the facts. The only personal opinion I offered appeared in the last sentence: "Systems of institutionalized racism always result in injustice, and backlash is a predictable result." Have noted it as such.

I think it is inaccurate to say that "white privilege" and "white supremacy" are interchangable terms. In fact the usefulness of "white privilege" as a concept may be rooted in the "invisible, weightless knapsack" analogy--those who would never entertain white supremacist ideology may still benefit from some degreee of "white privilege." Apostle12 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is better to say synonymous. Question to help the issue: I am in Africa and what I have noticed that despite European people being less than 10% of the population, when they advertise for employment or accommodation, etc, they always put their Race. i.e. "I am a White woman", now which is that WP or WS, in a country which has policies to favor Black people, (BEE) why would people still advertise their Whiteness. The only reason I am asking this is to iron out WP and WS. b/c I believe the WS cretes WP, and WP creates WS. (personal opinion was that the term was out of fashion). --Inayity (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Good to get the African perspective. With respect to why white people in Africa might state their race in advertisements, I'm not sure. Could be just a disclosure kind of thing, or perhaps they wish to appeal to personal prejudice, which is alive and well everywhere. I find that, while I strive to base my personal evaluations on character, there are many who do not. You use a lot of abbreviation; not sure what (BEE) means. Still can't agree that "white privilege" and "white supremacy" are either "interchangeable" or "synonymous."

Seems to me that some of this has to do with reputation. Here in America, blacks commit approximatley six times as many violent crimes as whites (assault, rape, murder), so in the public sector one must take race into consideration if there is no opportunity to discern character. The Reverend Jesse Jackson said it best: "There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about robbery and then look around and see it’s somebody white and feel relieved." Is this an example of "white privilege" or just real world pragmatism? Apostle12 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Black Economic Empowerment (South Africa). I promoise you they put their race b/c it helps them get the job. Ill b back to reply later. --Inayity (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

But affirmative action for white people still exists, albeit only under labels like "legacy admissions".[9] This is not off the topic of improving the article, as I have been meaning to ask folks here for a while now how we might include information about legacy admissions, first in last out, and the like. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We should look into the policies themselves and see how they are structured--at Harvard, Yale, Princeton. But also at traditionally black universities like Howard. Not sure there are "legacy admissions" at public universities like U.C. Berkeley. I think not, however if there is some legacy effect in the University of California system, by now it would constitute "asian privilege" more than "white privilege," since most campuses have been majority asian for quite some time now. Apostle12 (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There are major issues with the lede. It seems to me that the discussion on writing new sections is keeping other editors from considering these issues. I would like other editors to weigh in on the questions raised in the section above, "Changes to Lede," so that we may know how to proceed on the intro to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There is one thing you should not do, is try and force people to focus on what you determine is important. i dont think Wiki works like that Boss. So post this content in your own section, I am free to develop what I want on this page. And please assume Good faith. I see major issues with your nit picking about a lede at the expense of everything else. --Inayity (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been polite, and I don't appreciate your tone, which is highly condescending. I want to edit the lede to make it more accurate, but my previous edit was reverted. In the absence of a discussion to resolve the issue, it is difficult to move forward. I don't want to put time and effort into sourcing and writing edits that will simply be reverted once I am done, as I am sure you can understand. Naturally, depicting the article's subject accurately in the lede is not nit-picking, but vitally important to any good Wikipedia entry. If you do not want to think about the lede, or consider the literature disputing the claims in the lede, that is fine, but I also expect you then to refrain from reverting edits you do not like. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please write your proposed version here for review. I withdrew from editing this article because of the entrenched positions of the controlling editors. I hope you will have more fortitude, because I agree that the lede as presently written is inaccurate and deficient. Apostle12 (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Check it, I didnt completely revert your edit, I put it back, and then I was reverted. Just keeping the record straight. I was reverted--Inayity (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

When You find the wikipedia guideline to everything you just said, please let me know, until then respect the rules of this talk page and post your mission in the relevant sections. WP:TALK and remember (nothing personal- i respect your info, i do not like your assumption and pushing)but still WP:NORUSH, i.e. take a break, and let ppl refresh their brains.--Inayity (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Your attitude is "highly condescending" Inayity!Apostle12 (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly object to the inclusion of perspectives from "Yurugu" in the article. It is unadulterated racism; if we include this sort of material, we might as well throw in David Duke for good measure (this is not a serious suggestion, of course). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My copy arrives tomor so i will see what she is on about. --Inayity (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This particular book is held in quite a number of well respected academic libraries. The same cannot be said of Mr. Duke's writings. I would be interested to look at it myself, but in the absence of a copy, I would be inclined to say that it could be a useful reference based on that information alone. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"Yurugu" expounds an explicitly racist theory of the origin of European culture. Libraries can keep a copy on hand if they'd like, but we cannot include it in this article, unless we explicitly describe it as racist. We're not going to include phrenological theories on the cultural development of various peoples, and we're also not going to include Melanin theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Are we seriously considering the inclusion of such an inflamatory, self-discrediting source? The one favor Hitler did the world was to mostly rid us of this kind of "thinking." Apostle12 (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see any evidence you have that this book advances the theory you reference. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am now more interested in reading it, so by Weekend I will let you guys know, also if the book is so bad per Thucyidse411, then there would be academic refutations just like they are for Duke. Also you can peep it at Google books.--Inayity (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you now more interested in reading it? Just curious. Apostle12 (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A Google books search for "marimba ani melanin theory" reveals this as its first hit: "Encyclopedia of Black studies - Page 328". From the entry on "Melanin Theory":

Melanin theory is associated with the writings of Richard King, Frances Cress Welsing, and to some extent, Marimba Ani. There are several others who adhere to the idea that melanin influences an individual's spiritual sensitivity.

You can look at the page on Melanin theory to see how discredited it is. From the lede of that article:

Melanin theory is a pseudoscientific, racist theory, founded in the distortion of the known physical properties of melanin, a natural polymer and organic semiconductor. In humans, melanin is the primary determinant of skin color. People whose ancestors lived for long periods in the regions of the globe near the equator generally have larger quantities of eumelanin in their skins. Melanin theorists assert that the possession of greater quantities of melanin causes an inherent superiority of black people. Conversely, its lack demonstrates the alleged inhumanity and inferiority of white people. Some black supremacists justify supremacist assertions by assigning dubious properties to melanin based on pseudoscience and distortions of scientific fact or speculation. Scientists consider melanin theory pseudoscience; it has no credibility in mainstream medicine or science.

There are plenty of sources over at the Melanin theory article which discredit the theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

But you do understand that we are discussing WP, so that belief (if true) cannot rule her out as a expert on WP. It is like saying just b/c I believe in Aliens (and I dont), I cannot be a scholar on space craft or Quark Theory. I will check your links now. quick note " To some extent" we will need to judge her by the book on WP and nothing else --Inayity (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You used the word "rubbish" recently; that accurate describes the above.Apostle12 (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I move that we remove the claim and the corresponding citation. Assuming for the sake of argument that "whiteness is central to the European self-image", this is of no consequence in an article on white privilege unless the European self-image is the default or dominant self-image. And even if that is true, we would need to support the claim in a way that is not original research. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)