Talk:White privilege/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Edit request

The dab template should go below the neutrality tag.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: no it shouldn't, see MOS:LEAD#Elements of the lead - hatnotes go first of all. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's news to me, because generally, when the tags are added automatically, they're put at the top regardless of any hatnote that may be on the page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That suggests that the automatic process (please give an example) is in error, so Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. This should not be done unless both MOS:LEAD and WP:HNP change. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Privilege" is misspelled

In the first sentence, "privilege" is misspelled as "privelege". Could someone with administrator privileges fix the spelling? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This I am willing to do, so Done --Redrose64 (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for first sentence

Propose replacing current first sentence:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the set of societal priveleges that white people benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc).

With the following:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain race or ethnicity based inequalities such as those in social status or class, health or access to healthcare, political representation, or economics.

I don't think this is substantive enough a change to require a reference to the journal, as it is mainly a rewording. It may be useful to break off the reference to critical race theory, or perhaps provide a second reference. If it's broken out into a second sentence, that would allow the possibility of explaining that there are other historical antecedents of the concept. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this may be headed in the right direction. However, especially for the lede, I think the sentence should be simplified. For example, I think "ethnicity-based inequalities" includes race, so to say "race or ethnicity based inequalities" is unnecessary. Also I think we should not try to list specific "ethnicity-based inequalities," e.g. "social status or class, health or access to healthcare, political representation, or economics." Such inequalities cut both ways, with certain ethnicity-labeled inequalities favoring specific groups and other ethnicity-labeled inequalities disfavoring specific groups. To try to list ethnicity-based inequalities makes this a run-on sentence, and it also tends to be reductive of a rather long list, which leads toward over-simplification.

I could support:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain certain ethnicity-based inequalities.

Apostle12 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity are not the same. I was attempting to mirror the original sentence in its naming of specific spheres. Since I haven't gotten ahold of the article yet, i am loath to make changes to the sentence other than simple rewording. And technically, it is not a run-on sentence. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 02:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct, race and ethnicity are not the same. What I suggested is that ethnicity-based inequalities includes racial categories. Quoting from "Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting" (http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm):

"Anthropologically speaking, the concept of race is a relatively recent one. Historically, the term 'race' was ascribed to groups of individuals who were categorized as biologically distinct. Rather than developing as a scientific concept, the current notion of 'race' in the United States grew out of a European folk taxonomy or classification system sometime after Columbus sailed to the Americas. Increased exploration of far-away lands with people of different custom, language, and physical traits clearly contributed to the developing idea. In these pre-Darwinian times the observed differences--biological, behavioral and cultural--were all considered to be products of creation by God. It was in this intellectual climate that the perceived purity and immutability of races originated. Perceived behavioral features and differences in intellect were inextricably linked to race and served as a basis for the ranking, in terms of superiority, of races....The American Anthropological Association recognizes that classical racial terms may be useful for many people who prefer to use proudly such terms about themselves. The Association wishes to stress that if biological information is not objective, biological-sounding terms add nothing to the precision, rigor, or factual basis of information being collected to characterize the identities of the American population. In that sense, phasing out the term 'race,' to be replaced with more correct terms related to ethnicity, such as 'ethnic origins,' would be less prone to misunderstanding."

Among those ethnicity-based inequalities that would be difficult to consider within the white privilege conceptual framework:

The disproportionately high representation of African Americans among girls who rank high in self-esteem vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings (latina girls, northern European white girls, southern European white girls, Japanese girls, Chinese girls, Korean girls, Ashkenazi Jewish girls) with correspondingly lower rates of eating disorders, depression, and suicide.

The disproportionately high representation of Japanese, Chinese and Koreans who attend American institutions of higher learning vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings (Cambodians, Laotians, northern European whites, southern European whites, latinos, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and African Americans), with correspondingly higher rates of success earning bachelor degrees, masters degrees and doctoral degrees.

The disproportionately high representation of African American men (76%) among National Basketball Association players vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings - white European men 20%, latino men 3%, asian men 1%.

The disproportionately high representation of African American men (67%)among National Football Leage players vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings - white European men 31%, latino men 1%, and asian men 1%.

The disproportionately high representation of Ashkenazi Jews among American scientists in general and Nobel Prize science winners in particular vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings (northern European whites, southern European whites, asians, latinos, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and African Americans).

The disproportionately high representation of African Americans among those who contract STDs each year (syphilus, gonorrhea, chlamydia, venereal warts, and HIV/AIDS) vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings (northern Europeans, southern Europeans, Ashkenazi Jews, latinos, asians, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders).

The list goes on, as I'm sure will this discussion. Apostle12 (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I support UseTheCommandLines's proposed language for the first sentence. We don't necessarily need sources in the lede (I think it's discouraged). If necessary, we could source the connection to Critical Race Theory better in the body of the article. The only issue I have is with the word "based," as many argue that these inequalities are class based, or that although they have their origin in racial discrimination, they are not primarily perpetuated through those means any more. But perhaps this is nit-picking.

On another note, Apostle12, I think you're off topic here, and I'm not sure what you mean with some of the points above, especially the last one. They certainly could be interpreted in the wrong way. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

while content that is appropriately sourced in the body does not generally need to also be cited in the lead, for contentious content it is not only acceptable to have cites in the lead, it is beneficial to the stability of the article and to head off conflicts before they occur.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So far the White privilege article has cherry-picked differential outcomes (white people v. people of color) that could plausibly be linked to privileges that white people enjoy. My point is simply that many such differential outcomes do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege; I believe some relevant discussion should be included in the article. Apostle12 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a posting at AN/I where I discuss the above statement by Apostle12 and my extended wikibreak, which will commence now. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 16:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Something this article needs...

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

---

OK, so if I'm a benefactor of white privilege (or male privilege, Christian privilege, etc.), then what am I supposed to do about it? Am I supposed to feel guilty? Am I supposed to stop doing something that I didn't even realize I'm doing? Do any of the authors of these scholarly articles even have advice for the privileged individuals who are overly privileged and who are screwing up the rest of society for the non-privileged groups? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is none of these people who made those books, nor are we a consulting group for such things. I suggestgoing to a Psychologist or see a life counselor and ask. We are a encyclopedia not a life discussion group.FusionLord (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

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

I don't get it.

This page is written under the premise that white privilege is correct or something that is objectively present in reality. White privilege is a theory and any discussion of it must be framed as such. This is the most blatant violation of Wikipedia's rules of neutrality I have ever seen. It is patently obvious what kind of person wrote this article. This is something Wikipedia should avoid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.206.73 (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Structure of first sentence

Currently the first sentence reads:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain certain race- or ethnicity-based inequalities.

While I recognize the technical accuracy of the dashes if we are to include both race and ethnicity, they do make the structure a bit off-putting. Perhaps eliminating the dashes might help?:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain certain race or ethnicity based inequalities.

In a previous discussion I had suggested that, since ethnicity includes race we simplify the sentence to read:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain certain ethnicity based inequalities.

This was in keeping with a discussion at "Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting" (http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm):

"Anthropologically speaking, the concept of race is a relatively recent one. Historically, the term 'race' was ascribed to groups of individuals who were categorized as biologically distinct. Rather than developing as a scientific concept, the current notion of 'race' in the United States grew out of a European folk taxonomy or classification system sometime after Columbus sailed to the Americas. Increased exploration of far-away lands with people of different custom, language, and physical traits clearly contributed to the developing idea. In these pre-Darwinian times the observed differences--biological, behavioral and cultural--were all considered to be products of creation by God. It was in this intellectual climate that the perceived purity and immutability of races originated. Perceived behavioral features and differences in intellect were inextricably linked to race and served as a basis for the ranking, in terms of superiority, of races....The American Anthropological Association recognizes that classical racial terms may be useful for many people who prefer to use proudly such terms about themselves. The Association wishes to stress that if biological information is not objective, biological-sounding terms add nothing to the precision, rigor, or factual basis of information being collected to characterize the identities of the American population. In that sense, phasing out the term 'race,' to be replaced with more correct terms related to ethnicity, such as 'ethnic origins,' would be less prone to misunderstanding."

If the consensus is still to mention both race and ethnicity, I have no serious objection. Thucydides411 did voice a minor objection to "based." I wonder if we might consider:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain certain inequalities associated with race or ethnicity.

Think I'll try that. Comments?

P.S. Is tag still needed?

Apostle12 (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing for first sentence of the lede

The source provided ("White space, white privilege: Mapping discursive inquiry into the self" by Ronald L. Jackson II) is very long and the author's language is very dense, however it certainly addresses the topic of the first sentence, which reads "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain certain ethnicity-based inequalities." The following paragraph, and what follows, is particularly germaine.

"Presently, there is a resurgence of critical race studies which grapples with the protean nature of whiteness. Among these is Robyn Wiegman's (1994) American Anatomies. In this volume, Wiegman, an American studies scholar, posits that race is an American construct that captures individuals as visible economies. That is, human beings of various racial and cultural identities, in America, form a complex and regulated matrix designed to maintain what Stuart Hall (1997) names the "circuits of power and capital." In this instance, cultural capital is more than critical studies jargon translated to mean dividends for popular cultural production. The nature of cultural capital denotes divisions, resources, and competitive difference. When applied to human relationships, cultural capital mimics the destructive function of race. In the production of dichotomies such as high/low, good/bad, and White/Black, cultural spaces are marginalized, identities are constricted, and difference is devalued. As a result, a cultural subject is erected which becomes the exemplar of appropriateness. In America, whiteness is enacted from a state of subjectivity, and it must be critically examined as a position of being in order to understand the conditions that promote it as subject and Otherness as object."

I am certain there are other sources that could be provided, but this one seems on target to me. Apostle12 (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That's clear as mud. If the rest of the essay is like that, it doesn't support the lede at all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the language is very dense. Though I didn't supply this source (I think was supplied by UseTheCommandLine when she revised the lede last year), I read the entire piece and found the author's work instructive and relevant. We can probably find a better one. BTW, my attempt at supplementing this source was sincere - didn't see it as an "anonymous blog," though I admit I didn't look beyond its purported UCLA source. Apostle12 (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Just found the original paper, which discusses white privilege in the context of Critical Race Theory and its relevance to ethnicity/race-based inequalities.

"Eduardo Bonilla-Silva refers to this as “racism without racists” meaning that the overt bigot need not exist in order for racist policies and practices to continue (Bonilla-Silva 2006). Rather, racism has taken on a more subtle, covert form. This system of racial power (which is based on white privilege and white supremacy) supports the subordination of people of color and is reinforced by institutions such as the legal and education systems."

Apostle12 (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• The current lede...

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain certain inequalities associated with race or ethnicity.

...is not supported by cited sources. They do not define white privilege as a "conceptual framework", nor do they indicate that it is "derived from critical race theory".

Without supporting sources this sentence cannot remain (supporting sources are required by WP:V).

• This version of lede...

White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the set of societal privileges that white people benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc).

...was barely supported by the cited source.

It is, however, fully supported by the following sources...

• McIntosh is adept at describing the daily advantage white people have based on the color of their skin.
• Wildman (2000) discusses the characteristics of the privileged by saying they "define the societal norm, often benefiting those in the privileged group. Second, privileged group members can rely on their privilege and avoid objecting to oppression" (p. 53).
• Sue (2003) defines White privilege as "unearned advantages and benefits" given to White individuals based on a system that was "normed on the experiences, values, and perceptions" of White individuals (p. 7).
• Kendall (2006) describes White privilege as "an institutional, rather than personal, set of benefits granted to" (p. 63) people whose race resembles that of the people who are in power.
• White privilege has been defined by David Wellman as a system of advantage based on race.
• Paula Rothenberg defines White privilege as the other side of discrimination, meaning the opposite of discrimination.
• White privilege, specifically, is an institutional set of unearned benefits granted to White people.
• White privilege is a form of racism that both underlies and is distinct from institutional and overt racism.
• Experts define White privilege as a combination of exclusive standards and opinions that are supported by Whites in a way that continually reinforces social distance between groups on the basis of power, access, advantage, majority status, control, choice, autonomy, authority, possessions, wealth, opportunity, materialistic acquisition, connection, access, preferential treatment, entitlement, and social standing.

Refs

• Until sources can be located that clearly support the current lede, it would be best (i.e., policy) to restore a supportable version of the first sentence (via the sources above). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can take a stab at it then. The way I see it, all these sources talk around the issue of white privilege, yet none of them succinctly defines it. After reading enough sources, one develops a kind of holistic understanding of the phrase UseTheCommandLine introduced - a conceptual framework - but I agree this exact phrase appears nowhere. Nor does any other applicable phrase emerge: some that have been offered are "a system of advantage based on race," "an institutional set of unearned benefits," "a form of racism," and "a combination of exclusive standards and opinions."

For awhile, the first sentence read "White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the set of societal privileges that white people are argued to benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc)." (emphasis added) Are argued to at least acknowledged that there is some controversy surrounding the term; so far it may be the most neutral construction of the lede's first sentence.

Perhaps you can come up with something better. Apostle12 (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

My article petition has been deleted multiple times, now, and I'm starting to feel a little frustrated.

I have attempted to respectfully petition that this article be deleted many times, summarily, without so much as a reason, other than "vandalism and belligerence." With all due respect to the Wiki community, my frustration should not be taken as belligerence, and should not be the whole reason or even part of the reason for dismissing my points. They should be dismissed if they are incorrect, or if you agree that the concept of "White Privilege" is a valuable educational topic.

This is ironic. I find myself as a person who would commonly be referred to as a 'minority' arguing for the deletion of a page on "white privilege." I respectfully petition this page, and all similar pages like it, for deletion, the rationale for this will follow:

This page, and others like it, were created in the interest of opening minds, eyes, and discussions on an issue that the powers that be and the people they serve determined needed discussion: The apparent unfair status of whites, particularly white males, in society. For too long, mostly in the Western World, whites have had a position of power, and this power needed to be unseated, diplomatically, of course, in the interest of fairness.

However, while the motives of those who would seek to create a more egalitarian world are indeed good, it can be demonstrated that their results have not been as positive. Instead of creating a culture where everyone is respected, analyzed, and categorized by their merits alone, the "egalitarians," if such a term can be used, have caused the pendulum to swing, rather precipitously, in the reverse direction. In the name of equality, programs that are for "insert-race-here" only have sprung up by the dozens, and, as a beneficiary from these programs, I can hardly decry all of them, or even any of them, as being bad. However, I do think that their rationale needs to be re-examined. In the fledgling days post-Civil Rights, agencies such as the NAACP were formed, and laws such as Affirmative Action were passed, in order to bring the recently-freed and very-recently equalized Black peoples in educational line with the rest of society. I am not calling for the end of the NAACP, because there are still very real cases of racism in the world, and even in America, and those need to be investigated.

But, what has seemed to happen as Blacks, and all minorities, get greater power and better status in America, instead of seeking to better themselves and "show up" "the white man", which is a dream I certainly share in from time to time, we have minorities sinking to the same petty level as their previous white oppressors. Eric Holder deliberately refusing to prosecute Black Panthers intimidating voters going to vote in 2008 is but one example. "Thug Life", and "Gangsta Culture", are others. Why is it, among the Black community, acting or talking "white", is a pejorative term? Why is it considered negative to stand up straight and wear clothes that fit? Why is it, that in the cities with the toughest gun laws in America, Black-on-Black crime is still rampant? Why do Blacks commit the majority of crimes? It's not institutional racism. Why do so many Blacks take out their rage on whites? Why are there so many Black-on-White rapes, but no White-on-Black rapes? And that is simply one "minority" community, of which America houses hundreds. But that's just the negative light.

In America, despite what some may tell you, according to a study that can be found here: http://www.oecd.org/berlin/4750353.pdf the Anglophone countries are actually the most accepting and open-minded when it comes to minorities. And further, America is alone in the world in trying to use affirmative action and other associated programs to lift minorities up. Respectfully, in conclusion, while there is no denying that America, and all of the Western world, can continue to make progress on the idea of racial equality, shaming whites with this nonsensical idea of "White Privilege" would be as inane as someone going to a majority Han Chinese country and claiming "Chinese Privilege," or going to any one of the African nations and crying about "African Privilege". Claiming "racism" against another race for any minor slight will only have the long-term goal of watering down the word until it means nothing, and only serves to sow seeds of bitterness and resentment between peoples that could be getting along in peace and prosperity. Any privilege one has is a result of their circumstances, and until we can learn to control the flow of time or become gods, the circumstances of ones birth are left entirely up to chance. What you choose to do after that is what you control. 129.255.229.196 (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the concept of white privilege, even if everything you say is true, is one that people need to be able to look up somewhere. Even if white privilege doesn't exist at all and even if the existence of the concept is bad and has bad consequences, people will want to know what the phrase means. The key is that the concept is widely discussed, so should have an article. If you really want to get it deleted, you should read up on WP:AFD and take it there. Your proposed deletion templates aren't going to do the trick. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@IP 129.255.229.196, the advice to review AFD procedures and try that as the appropriate venue is spot on. For that matter, so is the rest of "alf's" explanation; even though many of your individual assertions may be true, the fact remains that "the Theory of White Privilege" exists. Whether it is "true" or not, it is widely accepted and discussed in certain academic circles and there is no real question that we should maintain an article on the topic.

Our job isn't to judge the truth or accuracy of academic theories, but to relate, as neutrally as possible, what recognized authorities have said on the subject, both "pro" and "con". We leave it to the reader to form their own opinions and conclusions. That being said, I think many editors would agree that the tone of the article often strays from neutrality. I also recall past complaints about a lack of criticism which may still need attention.

Since it is unlikely that this page would be deleted at an AfD, the best thing to do is help improve the article: try to find new information from Reliable Sources that support your some of your points and they can be added to it. Or, find something in the article you think needs improvement and use the talkpage to make a specific suggestion for changes. Your participation would be welcome. Doc Tropics 01:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong article Order? Merge? Re-write?

This article seems weak, I'm not sure why. Could be the lede is weak? Anyway, "History" here seems out of order. Learning about the history of a mystery topic here does not work. It is a complex current event, attitude, self-image, and much more, thus the lede is an insufficient foundation for History. The topic does not flow naturally from the passing of time. It should be properly defined first. Yes, I see there is already two History sections, thus re-ordering will be difficult. It's possible History needs to be merged gently into the definition?...at least not avoided. Separateness here could lead to the awkwardness?
--69.110.90.230 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Mollypitcher's proposed addition to the lead

This material has been reverted by two different editors in under an hour (new material italic):

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a disputed concept. As described in Theodore W. Allen’s pioneering analysis in the 1960s, these privileges were not a “benefit,” but were ruinous to the class interests of European-American workers and all working people. For others, however, it refers to the set of societal privileges that white people are argued to benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc).

There are references but I took them out. You can see them in the last diff here. At a minimum this material does not belong in the lead because it is too specific for the lead and doesn't summarize material already in the article per WP:LEAD. At a maximum the material is being given extreme undue weight by being placed in the lead. I realize this article is in sorry shape and the lead doesn't adequately summarize the contents, but there's no excuse for adding random weasel wording to that lead, whether it's sourced or not.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What I (Molly Pitcher) say is factually accurate -- that should be important. The article lead should be more objective and recognize that there is legitimate difference on the issue of "white privilege/white skin privilege." Allen's work is extremely important and has considerable support. His "The Invention of the White Race" (two volumes) was recently republished by Verso Books and has been recognized as a "classic" by leading scholars. I read the comments by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and my submission does "generate interest" as a good lead should. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's comment about "adding random weasel wording" is totally uncalled for.Mollypitcher (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is from Molly Pitcher -- User alf laylah wa laylah (talk) expresses interest in talking -- however individual page says is away. Do you want to talk?Mollypitcher (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's no hurry, though. You read the part of WP:LEAD which says that it should generate interest. You should also read the part where it says that it should summarize material in the article. I think it'd be better if you wrote a section about Allen's work, put that into the article, and then possibly, if it's not undue weight, mention it in the lead. That's my opinion. Other editors are interested in the subject so please try to be patient.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with alf laylah wa laylah that the text in question presented a huge undue weight problem in the lead, especially the way it was placed before the stable, longstanding definition of white privilege. At absolute minimum, the term "white privilege" should be defined before criticism of the concept of "white privilege" is introduced. (I hope that makes sense.) And it's worth pointing out here that the lead already acknowledges criticism and debate surrounding the concept of white privilege. Putting the Allen info in the first sentence was too specific for the lead, to me, which is what gave it the undue weight. There is definitely room for mention of his work later in the article, but no specific scholar needs to be, or should be, given so much weight in the lead. Also I agree that there is no hurry here. This kind of discussion should be open for a while so anyone interested in the subject can participate. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is from Molly Pitcher – regarding the previous two comments – Some of Allen's contributions are already inserted in the article (if you go down a few paragraphs you will see them mentioned). If you look at my Molly Pitcher talk page you will see that in December 2012 I raised this issue of different interpretations of the topic and suggested a lead that was more accurate and that better (and more objectively) reflected the fact that there are differences in understanding of "white privilege/white skin privilege." Regarding “there’s no hurry” – I think it is about time (especially in light of my December effort) that the lead more accurately and objectively reflect thinking on the topic. Allen spent over 40 years writing on the topic and cites extensive primary sources, especially from 17th century Virginia, etc. What I write is accurate -- my lead is far more accurate and objective than the current opening paragraph, which does not recognize this difference of opinion on the topic Regarding Dawn’s comments – 1 The so-called “stable, longstanding definition of white privilege” does not reflect the thinking, inspired by Allen’s work and that of others, that led SDS (according to the NY Times in 1969) to call for “an all-out fight against ‘white skin privileges.” See Thomas R. Brooks, “The New Left is Showing Its Age, New York Times, June 15, 1969, p. 20 (this is cited in the article). 2. To refer to Allen’s work as “criticism of the concept of "white privilege"” – shows extraordinary misunderstanding of what Allen’s work is about.

Allen did pioneering work on “the concept of ‘white privilege” -- he was not a critic of “the concept”. He was a leading proponent of challenging “white privileges.” He was arguing that “white privileges” were real and that they were not in “white” workers class interest and that the privileges should be opposed by “white workers.”

I really encourage you, if you have not already done so – to read Allen. I also suggest that before so quickly deleting my documented contributions you read more of the history of the concept. See for example http://www.nathanielturner.com/tedalleninsights.htm Finally, I strongly recommend, if you don’t have a substantial reason for deleting my contribution, that you put it back in – for the reasons that it is accurate, that it is objective, and that it will “generate interest.”Mollypitcher (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

we present the content in proportion to the positions that they are currently held in academic circles. The proposed addition appears to be giving far too much prominence to a position that is not widely held today.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict), reply to Mollypitcher. But what about the issue that alf laylah wa laylah and I raised about undue weight, which is why we actually reverted your addition? Why does it need to be in the first sentences, preceding even the definition of the term? Why does Allen need to be the only person mentioned by name in the lead? Nobody here has said your edit was inaccurate or that it wouldn't generate interest, but generation of interest is far from the only consideration when crafting a Wikipedia article lead. And I wasn't referring to Allen's work, per se, as criticism of the concept of white privilege; I haven't misunderstood anything "extraordinarily" as you say. I was more referring your text, which changed the first sentence to White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a disputed concept, creating the impression that, well, it is a disuted concept, and that Allen, because he's mentioned right away, is one who disputes it. I really think there is too much in Allen's (or any specific scholar's) work to try to summarize it in one clear sentence, which is why the lead doesn't need to be and shouldn't be so specific. The article is very clear about Allen, thanks in part to your contributions in December, but I don't see the problem of undue weight in the lead as having been resolved. All that said, while I won't be the one to restore your text to the lead, I'm not going to get into an revert-war about it either, edit-wars are a waste of time and effort. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

see also WP:LEAD - the first sentence needs to describe what the subject of the article is. "its controversial" clearly fails at providing any useful information about the subject.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is from Molly Pitcher – In response to TheRedPenOfDoom – I think that your comment that Allen’s position “is not widely held today” reflects limited understanding of how influential Allen’s work is. It has received extraordinary praise from outstanding scholar and activists – see http://www.jeffreybperry.net/_center__i__font_size__3__font_color__sepia___b_5__the_invention_of_the_br_white_116386.htm

A simple Google search of “Theodore W. Allen” (in quotes) comes up with 245,000 results see https://www.google.com/search?q=theodor+w.+allen&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#client=firefox-a&hs=0L5&hl=en&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22theodore+w.+allen%22&oq=%22theodore+w.+allen%22&gs_l=serp.12..0i7j0j0i30l2.1107.4487.1.6132.2.2.0.0.0.0.71.138.2.2.0...0.0...1c.1.14.psy-ab.VaW5TdVlcuk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46751780,d.dmQ&fp=8526038e809b8fdf&biw=1247&bih=780 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollypitcher (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

work can be widely cited and influential in a particular period and still not reflect the current scholarly consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is from Molly Pitcher – in response to TheRedPenOfDoom –

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says that --

“Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.”

My sources are reliable, published, and significant.

Your statement in response to my talk that –

“’.. . . its controversial’ clearly fails at providing any useful information about the subject . . .” –

misquotes what I wrote. I never used the phrase that you quote ==

“its controversial” –

I used the phrase – it will “generate interest.” (This was drawn from a Wikipedia piece that it was suggested I read earlier in this talk).

This is Molly Pitcher in response to Alf–laylah –

The opening sentence of the current article -- "White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the set of societal privileges that white people are argued to benefit from . . .” is not fully accurate – and it therefore misleading.

It does not include or reflect the position that many important scholars and activists, including Allen, hold that the ruling class benefits from the system of “white skin privileges”, but that the “white” workers do not benefit from those “white skin privileges.”

The opening sentence of the current article takes as a given position of "white skin privilege" analysis – that “white” workers benefit. That is not agreed upon, and from the days of Allen's pioneering work it has not been agreed upon. Allen’s work on the topic argues otherwise and he contends that "white" workers’ interests would be better served by opposing “white skin privileges.” Other writers argue similarly.

Many important scholars and activists – see the page I linked to – argue that “white” WORKERS do not “benefit” from the privileges – that the privileges are a "poison bait" for workers, that they serve ruling class interests, not working class interests.

The difference centers around whether “white” working people benefit from “white race privileges” or not. Allen argued from a class analysis – that the privileges are not in “white workers interest” and that “white” workers should oppose them. He was clear that the ruling class did benefit from the system of “white skin privileges.”

I think it is wrong for this article to take as a given of the "white skin privilege" analaysis the position that white workers “benefit” from “white skin privileges.”

The article lead should reflect the fact that there are differences among those who write on “white skin privileges” about whether, or not, “white” workers benefit from these “race” privileges. It should not simply take that position that they benefit as a given of the “white skin privilege” analysis.Mollypitcher (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about your suggested lead phrase ("White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a disputed concept.") as being inappropriate in that it says nothing about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Molly Pitcher here -- I was commenting on your misquoting me.

Are you interested in correcting and improving the article -- I believe that have shown how the current lead is misleading? Or are you intent on keeping the current lead intact?Mollypitcher (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

and I have shown that your suggested change is WORSE than the current lead. If you want, suggest something else, but it will need to be very different than what you have been suggesting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Break:Is it a concept or a fact?

I think it is WORSE to be consciously misleading. That said, I think the lead would be improved by taking the following five words out of the opening sentence -- are argued to benefit from Mollypitcher (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No, White privilege is not any sort of fact that can be proved. it is construct through which to view and analyse. the 5 words are needed in this lead sentence to convey the non-factual-ness and indicate that it is piece of social critique. Those particular 5 words may not be needed in other formulations of a lead sentence that make the "construct"-ness of the concept apparent.

We are writing an encyclopedia article about the concept of White privilege, not trying to convince anyone that it is a fact.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TRPOD here (I hope that's an acceptable abbreviation).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is Molly Pitcher -- in response to TRPOD and Alf.Laylah -- Do you actually believe that “White privilege is not any sort of fact that can be proved”? Do you think “white only” primaries,” “lily-white” construction unions, etc. couldn’t be proved?

TRPOD's second sentence makes no sense – it reads – “Those particular 5 words may not be needed in other formulations of a lead sentence that make the ‘construct’-ness of the concept apparent.” Do you agree with that sentence, too, Alf.Laylah?

The views you express may be your personal convictions, but they shouldn’t dictate what can and what cannot appear in a Wikipedia article. I think we should strive for accuracy and objectivity and we should not knowingly mislead.

Finally, if you both believe that “white privilege” “is construct”, and, if you are interested in more on that topic, you may want to read Allen’s “Summary of the Argument of ‘The Invention of the White Race’” Part 1, beginning with No. 5, http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/allen.html where he writes the following --

Taking note of the earlier insights into "race" in America provided by African-American social critics such as W. E. B. Du Bois, James Baldwin, and Langston Hughes," the Chronicle of Higher Education in September 1995 reported that "Scholars from a variety of disciplines, "sociology, history, and legal, cultural, and literary studies," are attempting to lift the veil from whiteness."5 Just two years later, Stanford University professor George M. Frederickson, well-known teacher and writer on the history of relations between persons of African descent and those of European descent, asserted that "the proposition that race is 'a social and cultural construction,' has become an academic cliché."6

6. This trend, although it will surely experience a critical sorting-out of various interpretations it has produced, represents a great leap forward toward reducing the subject to rational dimensions as it concerns social scientists, by objectifying "whiteness," as a historical, rather than a biological category.

7. Nevertheless, the thesis of "race as a social construct," as it now stands, despite its value in objectifying "whiteness," is an insufficient basis for refutation of white-supremacist apologetics. For, what is to be the reply to the socio-biologist and historian Carl N. Degler who simply says that, "...blacks will be discriminated against whenever nonblacks have the power and incentive to do so...[because] it is human to have prejudice against those who are different."?7 Or, what if the socio-biologists say, "Fine, we can agree that racial ideology is a social construct, but what is your 'social construct' but an expression of genetic determinants--another version of Winthrop Jordan's 'unthinking decision'"?8

8. The logic of "race as a social construct" must be tightened and the focus sharpened. Just as it is unhelpful, to say the least, to euphemize racial slavery in continental Anglo-America as "the Peculiar Institution," instead of identifying the "white race," itself, as the truly peculiar institution governing the life of the country after emancipation as it did in slavery times; just as it is not "race" in general, that must be understood, but the "white race," in particular; so the "white race" must be understood, not simply as a social construct, but as a ruling class social control formation.

Mollypitcher (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do believe that "white privilege" cannot be "proved" in the same manner that one can "prove" gravity exists or one can mathematically "prove" that the square root of 4 is 2. But my belief or not DOES NOT MATTER ONE WHIT. what matters is that we represent - not "prove" that is NOT the function of an encyclopedia article - represent what the reliable sources have written about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel I can make constructive suggestions here, though this may be a bit of a digression. I do not intend to edit the article myself, as I am busy with other things.

I have struggled with the wording in the lead for some time. "theory" seems inadequate; my reading (grounded in the hard sciences) is that theories make testable predictions. I have offered "conceptual framework" before, and now offer "explanatory framework" or perhaps "analytical framework" but my ability to view social science literature is relatively limited, so I have been unable to find sources that refer to it in this way. Others may be able to, and I would encourage that.

So, my reading is that there are two intersecting issues here

1. there have been historical examples of privileges, explicitly or implicitly, legally extended only to white persons (this would be the factual part)
2. the idea of "white privilege" derived from critical theory is used as a lens by which to view historical and current events, but that is a post hoc analysis, and such as it is, does not make testable predictions as far as i can tell. (this would be the conceptual part)

That it does not make testable predictions is significant. My interpretation of the common meaning of "proof" is "something that been shown to make successful predictions about the future" and so it cannot be "proven" in this conventional sense. Many RS have observed things that are consistent with it, much as many RS have observed things that are consistent with biological evolution. It seems imperative that the scope of the article is clearly defined, so as to avoid intense and recurring disputes over "proof" defined in this way.

I think ideally, the article would make clear which portions are historical fact and which are analytical or critical, and address both of these without the weasel words which tend to creep in, particularly at the hands of IP or SPA editors. Splitting of the article may at some point be necessary to more clearly define scope. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Molly Pitcher here –

TRPoD you write --

“No, White privilege is not any sort of fact that can be proved.”

You then use this statement to argue “it is construct through which to view and analyse. the 5 words are needed in this lead sentence to convey the non-factual-ness and indicate that it is piece of social critique. Those particular 5 words may not be needed in other formulations of a lead sentence that make the "construct"-ness of the concept apparent. “

I have no idea what any of what you wrote means – it comes across as gobbledygook.

It makes even less sense when you later discuss the “factual part” of “white privilege” and write -- “there have been historical examples of privileges, explicitly or implicitly, legally extended only to white persons (this would be the factual part)”

You also later write –

“Yes I do believe that ‘white privilege’ cannot be ‘proved’ in the same manner that one can ‘prove’ gravity exists or one can mathematically ‘prove’ that the square root of 4 is 2. But my belief or not DOES NOT MATTER ONE WHIT.”

What in the world are you talking about?

If your belief does not matter one whit, then why did you bring up the subject of white privilege not being “any sort of fact that can be proved” in the first place? And why do you write “Yes I do believe that ‘white privilege’ cannot be ‘proved’”?

Finally, as I have repeatedly said, the existing lead to the “white privilege” article is misleading. It should be more objective and it should be changed.Mollypitcher (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Perry source does not support the sentence: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a disputed concept." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Molly Pitcher here -- Please ArtifexMayhem, try to read more carefully before stating that "Perry source" "does not support the sentence 'White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a disputed concept.'" The Perry source does, in fact, very clearly support that statement -- read pages 45-51. Further, the "Perry source" you cite was not next to the sentence you quote. It came directly after the next sentence and the pages cited there support that sentence.Mollypitcher (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mollypitcher, I think you may be confusing my edit with TRPoD's. It also helps others follow along if you can use indentation to thread conversations. see WP:INDENT as well, that has some examples. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

And for the record, I believe "are argued to" is a phrase that is unnecessary. Looking at similar articles like Evolution or Global warming, the term "theory" is mentioned, but not in the very first sentence of the lead. I feel like this "are argued to" construction is very close to WP:ALLEGED language, myself, and from what I recall, there was something of a consensus a while back that this language was unnecessary. We do have a different crop of editors here these days though. Certainly give credence to critics of the idea, but that already exists in the lead. And there is a pretty significant amount of other work this article needs. These arguments about the language in the lead bog things down oftentimes, i think. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody wants to get sucked into the tar pit below so we concentrate on stirring around the scum on top...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mollypitcher's re-adding of all the material I deleted

In this diff Mollypitcher readds material I deleted:

For almost forty years Allen offered a detailed historical analysis of the origin, maintenance, and functioning of “white-skin privilege” in such writings as: “White Supremacy in U.S. History,” (1973);<ref>Ted (Theodore W.) Allen, [http://www.sojournertruth.net/uafws.pdf “White Supremacy in U.S. History,”] A Speech Delivered at a Guardian Forum on the National Question, 28 April 1973, rpt. in “White Supremacy a Collection” (Chicago: Sojourner Truth Organization, 1976;</ref> “Class Struggle and the Origin of Racial Slavery: The Invention of the White Race" (1975);<ref>Theodore W. Allen, [http://clogic.eserver.org/2006/allen.html “Class Struggle and the Origin of Racial Slavery: The Invention of the White Race”] (Hoboken: Hoboken Education Project, 1975), republished in 2006 with an “Introduction” by Jeffrey B. Perry at Center for the Study of Working Class Life, SUNY, Stony Brook</ref> “The Invention of the White Race,” Vol. 1: “Racial Oppression and Social Control” (1994, 2012);<ref>Theodore W. Allen, [http://www.versobooks.com/books/1039-the-invention-of-the-white-race-volume-1 “The Invention of the White Race,” Vol. 1: “Racial Oppression and Social Control”] (Verso Books, 1994, 2012)</ref> “The Invention of the White Race,” Vol. 2: “The Origin of Racial Oppression in Anglo-America” (1997, 2012);<ref>Theodore W. Allen, “The Invention of the White Race,” Vol. 2: “The Origin of Racial Oppression in Anglo-America” (1997, 2012,ISBN 9781844677702)</ref> “Summary of the Argument of ‘The Invention of the White Race’” Parts 1 and 2 (1998);<ref>Theodore W. Allen, [http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/allen.html “Summary of the Argument of ‘The Invention of the White Race,’” Part 1], “Cultural Logic,” Spring 1998 and [http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/allen2.html “Summary of the Argument of ‘The Invention of the White Race,’” Part 2, “Cultural Logic,” Spring 1998</ref> “In Defense of Affirmative Action in Employment Policy” (1998);<ref>Theodore W. Allen, [http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/affirmative.html “In Defense of Affirmative Action in Employment Policy”] “Cultural Logic,” Spring, 1998)</ref> “‘Race’ and ‘Ethnicity’: History and the 2000 Census” (1999);<ref>Theodore W. Allen, [http://clogic.eserver.org/3-1&2/allen.html “‘Race’ and ‘Ethnicity’: History and the 2000 Census”], “Cultural Logic,” 2009</ref> and “On Roediger’s Wages of Whiteness” (Revised Edition)”;<ref>Theodore W. Allen, [http://clogic.eserver.org/4-2/allen.html “On Roediger’s Wages of Whiteness” (Revised Edition)”] (“Cultural Logic,” 2001).</ref>

I think that this descriptive list of the collected works of Theodore Allen belongs more properly in his own article. It overwhelms the paragraph and doesn't say anything concrete about white privilege itself. I think it should be removed. If not removed, it should be rewritten thoroughly so that it's sourceable to secondary sources which discuss the import of Allen's work. Sourcing each book to itself is not enough to establish either notability or relevance in my opinion. Thoughts? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I agree with you here, alf laylah wa laylah. This is just a list of Allen's works, and I don't see any good reason for them to be included in the article in paragraph form, especially given that most of them are already listed in the further reading section. Merely listing these works in the history section here does not add anything to an article about white privilege, and I think that an extended discussion of the import of each the works would give them undue weight here - it would, of course, be entirely appropriate to discuss them (with secondary sources) in depth at the article about Allen. I think the whole paragraph should be deleted. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

stuff that should be restored somewhere

In the very much needed massive clean up going on, this was removed. as the new format and structure gets defined, I think some of this has a place to bring the connection to Critical Race Theory.

Scholars within the legal and sociological studies field of critical race theory, such as Cheryl Harris and George Lipsitz, have argued that "whiteness" has historically been treated more as a form of property than as a racial characteristic: In other words, as an object which has intrinsic value that must be protected by social and legal institutions. Laws and mores concerning race (from apartheid and Jim Crow constructions that legally separate different races to social prejudices against interracial relationships or mixed communities) serve the purpose of retaining certain advantages and privileges for whites. Because of this, academic and societal ideas about race have tended to focus solely on the disadvantages suffered by racial minorities, overlooking the advantageous effects that accrue to whites.

References

Yes, that's a good paragraph. I'm still at a loss regarding how to structure things.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

without having looked for sources, what about something like:

1. Overview - 3 or 4 general paragraphs
2. History
3. Precepts
::3.a various subsections about aspects that are covered / included under the umbrella of WP

sections 2& 3 could be swapped depending upon how the flow works.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added back in the section "Aspect," which User_talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah removed. I don't necessarily disagree that the section has a lot of fluff, but I think we should go through it and determine what is, and what is not fluff. There is some good material in the section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

so called "general definitions" subsection

I removed this subsubsection:

===General definitions=== Heidi A. Zetzer categorizes white privilege as an "institutional and individual manifestation of racism, however indirectly or unintentionally."<ref>Zetzer, H.A. (2005). White Out: Privilege and Its Problems. In S.K. Anderson & V.A. Middleton (eds.), Explorations in Privilege, Oppression, and Diversity (pp. 5). Belmont, California: Thomson Brooks/Cole.</ref> Zetzer argues the indirectness of white privilege increases its prevalence. If people are not educated about white privilege, she argues, it is unlikely that they will take note of it. Zetzer further argues that whites who are aware of privilege suffer under the stigma of benefiting from an unfair system. Zetzer asks, "How can I see myself as a just person when I willingly participate in a system that is inherently unfair?" The guilt formed by this opinion creates a spirit of inactivity in solving the problem. "White guilt," as Zetzer deems it, is an impediment to change. Zetzer argues that honest and multicultural dialogue is the first way to build alliances which can then "transform people and systems and turn intention into action."<ref>Zetzer, H.A. (2005). White Out: Privilege and Its Problems. In S.K. Anderson & V.A. Middleton (eds.), Explorations in Privilege, Oppression, and Diversity (pp. 13). Belmont, California: Thomson Brooks/Cole.</ref>

I think it should stay out because (a) it's a failure as a "general definition," (b) it repeats material included elsewhere, and (c) there's no indication that Heidi Zetzer is the go-to person on the general definition of white privilege. It's possible that a sentence or two about Zetzer's work may find a place somewhere, but this is not it. Thoughts? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The redlinks at both Heidi A. Zetzer and Heidi Zetzer support your analysis that she is not a key opinion leader, or she would have her own article, and therefore her opinions should be presented merely as one of many.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Self image subsection of "aspects"

I removed this:

=== Self-image === According to [[Beverly Daniel Tatum]], most white people do not think to [[self-image|describe themselves]] as "white" when listing descriptive terms about themselves, whereas people of color usually use racial or ethnic identity descriptors. Tatum suggests this is because the elements of one's identity that are congruent with the dominant culture are so normalized and reflected back at one that one is apt to take such traits for granted. This is not the case for identity aspects of those who are defined as "other" by the dominant culture, whether it be on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or other microcultural aspects.<ref name="Tatum">{{cite book| first=Beverly Daniel |last=Tatum |authorlink=Beverly Daniel Tatum |title=Why are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? And Other Conversations About Race |location=New York |publisher=Basic Books|date=1999-06-18 |isbn=978-0-465-09127-0}}</ref> According to Tatum the true reasons behind this occurrence are unknown, but may also be due to many different unspoken psychological effects on minorities and majorities alike, whether it be pride, shame, or an environmental stimulation such as a rally. Tatum writes that dominant [[microculture]]s (in this case, white people) set the parameters in which "subordinate" microcultures operate. Subordinate groups are often labeled as substandard in significant ways: e.g., blacks have historically been characterized as less intelligent than whites.<ref name="Tatum"/> Subordinates are also defined as being innately incapable of being able to perform the preferred roles in society.<ref name="Tatum"/> In non-white people the use of [[skin whitening]] treatments by [[people of color]] has been linked to the benefits of white privilege. According to several theorists the relationship between white privilege and skin whitening is explained by [[colorism]] and [[colonial mentality]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Brown is Beautiful|url=http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11261|author=Llewelyn Muriel Austria-del Rosario}}</ref>

because (a) the material sourced to Beverly Tatum's book doesn't discuss white privilege at all. It's about racial self-identity. (b) Of the two sentences about skin whitening, one is not sourced, the one that mentions white privilege and the other does not mention white privilege but is about colorism and colonial mentality. The source is not available to check whether it mentions white privilege, but given that the other sources that I removed yesterday for this statement did not mention white privilege at all I tend to doubt it. Note that this is the last section I'll be removing for now until discussion gets going more.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel it's pertinent. One of the core elements of white privilege is the ability to assume that one's experience as a white person is "normal" or "standard" and that of people of color "exceptions". self-identity thus plays a role. Perhaps it might be better in another article that white privilege is linked to, but I believe this to be germane. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that the Privilege (social inequality) article might be the most appropriate place for this. That article needs a lot of filling out, and it seems like some of the less directly race related stuff might be able to go there. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it's pertinent. I just don't think Tatum is the source for it in this article since it isn't what she's talking about. With a good source that actually discusses the phenomenon in the context of white privilege I will have no problem with its inclusion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox

It appears that there is energy and interest in improving the current article. Because it appears that the article will need to be vastly changed, I would like to suggest that the work and revisions and consensus forming take place in a sandbox rather than in main article space.

Is it appropriate to create Talk:White privilege/Draftspace to work on article content? if not please feel free to use User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/White privilege sandbox. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Perceived

An IP editor wants to put "perceived" in the lead. I want to leave it out. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think my preferred lead would be to state right from the start that "white privilege" is a social concept. I don't know exactly the correct way to state this, but something like: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a concept in certain social theories that refers to the set of societal privileges that white people are argued to benefit from." It we include something about white privilege being a social theory/concept right from the start, it will be clearer to all that "white privilege" isn't an objective fact, but part of a specific model of thoughts. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support proposal above, it is certainly a "real idea" or concept as cited in sources which themselves discuss the merits of the concept, or attempt to measure or define the scope of the perceived advantages one may realize.Boogerpatrol (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support the above proposal. We should be explicit about what the context of white privilege is, as a concept. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Didn't the lead once say, "In critical race theory"? That is a good way to handle it, IMO. In any case the addition of "perceived" is redundant, as there is already mitigating language present. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Perceived is clearly redundant. I don't think the use of the term is limited to critical race theory any more. It's more of a general sociological term. Is it normal to qualify articles about sociological concepts by hedging so aggressively about whether the conceptual framework refers to real things? That's very platonic, and, I think, misguided. Obviously conceptual frameworks are sites of contention, which is why (a) we have the word "argued" in there already, and (b) sociologists seem to spend most of their energy arguing amongst themselves about the validity of their frameworks. For instance, Race (human classification) doesn't say in the lead that "Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by perceived anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, or social affiliation." even though it's been known at least since Ashley Montagu that the whole thing is made up. They discuss the made-up-edness in the article, where it belongs. I think that (a) the lead is fine for now, and (b) the whole article is a piece of crap which should be rewritten so that it can generate a new lead holistically. I know RPoD tried to get this process started recently and everybody, including myself, vanished, but perhaps someday...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that 'perceived' is redundant. Everything humans think about is 'perceived'. I don't see why the lede cannot read: "In the social sciences, the term white privilege is used to describe a set of rights and prerogatives that are typically granted by society to light-skinned people in certain cultural settings." This is exactly what the term describes. The differing definitions can all be boiled down to that statement. The article probably does need some additional re-write, but the lead sentence can be changed now to address these multiple concerns.. Things can be left as is for a couple of days for additional comments, but I will check back and make this change if there are no further comments after that. Meclee (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I support this proposal strongly. It's a flowing, well-written sentence that captures all relevant aspects of the matter.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The suggested first sentence has two problems. The first is that it states that a set of rights and prerogatives are typically granted by society to light-skinned people in certain cultural settings. That's what is contended in critical race theory and whiteness theory. The lede needs to be worded more neutrally, to avoid making a statement of fact about something which is a contention. The second issue is that the lede is very unclear as to where the term "white privilege" is used. It could be more specific. I think we should look to other articles about theories in social science to guide how we write the lede. For example, take a look at the article on Id, ego and super-ego. It begins,

"Id, ego and super-ego are the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction mental life is described. According to this model of the psyche, the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends; the super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role; and the ego is the organized, realistic part that mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego. The super-ego can stop you from doing certain things that your id may want you to do."

The lede describes the idea and where it comes from. It does not say whether id, ego and super-ego are correct descriptions of the human psyche. If the lede were reformulated as follows, the article would lose its objectivity:

"In the social sciences, the id, ego and super-ego describe three parts of the psyche. The id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends; the super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role; and the ego is the organized, realistic part that mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego. The super-ego can stop you from doing certain things that your id may want you to do."

We should try to write the lede with this point in mind. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The analogy with Id, ego, etc is flawed because that's one guy's theory, so naturally the article states it's one guy's theory. White privilege is a general sociological concept. Thus it would be more appropriate in my opinion to compare to something like Race (human classification), where the lead reads

Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, or social affiliation. First used to denote national affiliations, the term began to be used to relate to physical traits in the 17th century and promoted hierarchies favorable to differing ethnic groups. Starting from the 19th century the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.

Note that all of the criteria are stated in a way that makes them seem as if they are real, even though they're merely perceived categories. This is standard in reference books on the social sciences, viz. this excerpt from the Oxford Companion to the Politics of the world(subscription required):

Feminist theory examines and critiques the relations of power that are defined in and through the sex/gender system that “unnaturally” differentiates women from men. The feminist viewing of this problematic system of power, which privileges men while denying women legal and political equality and sexual freedom, has shifted over time. Different theorists of feminism reflect the changing times, histories, and varied conceptions of women's power and oppression.

You notice how there's no qualifying of the "perceived" system of power or whatnot. That simply is not a tone which expresses a neutral point of view. When one is talking about sociological theories it is understood that the frames of reference through which they analyze society are perceptions.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis isn't one guy's theory. It's a view of psychology that began with Freud and Jung, but which previously attained wide recognition, and now retains a certain currency in psychiatry. White privilege is a concept which has some currency in certain areas of social science - particularly in critical race theory, whiteness theory, and to some extent in education. We're not here to say that it's wrong or right. It's important to carefully define the concept as it is actually used, without stating its premises as fact. For example, we shouldn't say that a set of prerogatives are typically granted to light-skinned people, because that's a particular interpretation. As the article points out, the very idea of denoting certain facts of life commonly viewed as rights "prerogatives" or "privileges" is contentious.

Moreover, the above proposed lede doesn't even accurately state what "white privilege" means. "White privilege" is not a theory of privileges granted to "light-skinned people," but rather a theory of privileges granted to people who are socially constructed as white. Part of whiteness theory is that who is considered white by society has changed over time, and that various groups - such as the Irish and Italians - have made a sort of deal with the privileged white caste to attain whiteness, in exchange for support in the exclusion of other groups from whiteness.

I therefore propose the following for the first sentence: "In social science, white privilege refers to a set of societal privileges from which people socially constructed as white are argued to benefit." It's slightly more accurate than the current first sentence ([1]), but there's no pressing need to make the change. The lede, as a whole, is in pretty good shape right now. What needs more work is the bulk of the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree about the bulk of the article. In fact, most things are in there twice in differently lousy ways because you reverted my mass deletion instead of being selective about what went back in. It's really in horrible shape. Fortunately it makes about as much sense as the teachers teaching the classes whose students will be moved to look at it, so I don't think it matters so darn much.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

By all means, make a case for what you think should be removed from the article. Last time, you deleted the good with the bad, which is why I reverted. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This article and its issues have become so contentious that it may be better to just nominate it for deletion. Meclee (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Sociology, racial inequality, and differences in expected social benefits between races are not "just one guy's theory", either. There is an entire body of literature and research on "white privilege" that no one has had a chance to summarize here due to ongoing edit wars and tail-chasing arguments. The article can point to all sorts of arguments against the concept of white privilege, but only if the concept is first clearly outlined.Meclee (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

´´white skin privilage´´?

I´v never heard of this term and the only mention of it that I can find in the entire article is in a reference and it´s used in the context of color: ´´...whites do not necessarily intend to hurt people of color, but because they are unaware of their white-skin privilage...´´ Perhaps somebody will be able to scour the internet for the term, but it seems to be so rare that even if a source can be found, it´s not used enough to justify placing it in the lead as an alternative term. Edgth (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

please see the results of a google books search for the term. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Google hits is more broad and I have white skin privilage getting only a fifth of the hits [2] that white privilage gets [3] Edgth (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems to me sufficient to indicate its significance as an alternative term. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 00:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Less than 20% use seems pretty rare. I guess we´ll have to wait for others to comment. Edgth (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to whether an alternate term should be listed, it is not clear to me why we should give so much weight to percentages. The absolute numbers suggest that more than a few people will encounter the term in academic writing before they encounter "white skin privilege", and as far as I am concerned, that is sufficient reason to list it. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Even ignoring the fact that number of google hits for the term means absolutely squat, 20% is not "pretty rare" but rather "a common, but less used variant." as far as i'm concerned, because the term is used interchangeably with "white privilege" in, at minimum, the academic works in the google books search, it belongs in lead para. Feel free to cite WP:MOS if that's incorrect. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Google hits are very useful, far from squat. I don´t understand why none of our sources use ´white skin privilage´, which I did check before I first removed it. Edgth (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

number of google hits is not usable as a metric of notability. If you disagree, take it up on the relevant policy page. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Bias

This article is very biased. There is really no analysis of conservative criticism of the idea other than one paragraph. There is no response to liberal evidence of the supposed privilege. For example, isn't it obvious to anyone that the fact that Asians are underrepresented in the fortune five hundred might be a result of age differences? Here is a study showing ACTUAL discrimination against Asians in favor of Whites:

http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf

It is not mentioned that culture might have a role to play in these differences. The role of affirmative action is not mentioned. A Black college graduate will likely have gotten in to college with a lower SAT score than a White graduate. It has been documented that wealthy Blacks have lower SAT scores than poor Whites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achievement_gap_in_the_United_States#Income_and_class

"Various studies have also claimed that visible minority students are more likely than white students to be suspended or expelled from school, even though rates of serious school rule violations do not differ significantly by race"

I find this hard to believe. Black commit every type of real crime at much higher rates than Whites. Why would Black children behave so much better than adults? This seems to me like argument by assertion.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43 John Kaine (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"It can be compared to and/or combined with the concept of male privilege." I'm not sure where this statement comes from as it's not cited. While it's certainly true that intersectionality is a valid concept, intersectionality can apply to most any other type of privilege so to single out one of them seems disingenuous. It can also be disputed that the two compare all that well. The entire concept of male privilege is debateable while white privilege is not. There are privileges associated with both male and female. There aren't privileges commonly associated with people of color. Dfwcowboy (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Genetic factors

There should be at least a few references to genetic factors for White privilege, in order to reflect all points of view.John Martin Walker (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain what you mean more clearly? Your statement makes no sense to me whatsoever.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

What doesn't make sense? There is no information in the article on genetic factors that cause these racial disparities that are referred to as "White privilege." John Martin Walker (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand. Is there information anywhere about this? What are some of them?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

He's talking about the genetic differences between races. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.164.218 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Is he? What does he think that has to do with white privilege, do you think?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not Neutral

This article is not written from a neutral point of view, it presents the racist ideology of white privilege as a fact, refusing even to put 'perceived' in the article. It's highly inappropriate to put your racist agenda on wikipedia and devote a whole four lines to glossing over the fact that a lot of people object to discrimination based on characteristics of birth beyond a person's control. Instead of locking the article to prevent any dissenting points of view, how about you incorporate that dissent into the article to actually maintain a neutral POV? --75.128.245.124 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Article's matter of fact-ness

We should remember here that "white privilege" is merely a theory promoted by certain individuals. I'm not going to mention that these individuals significantly trend toward the left end of the spectrum, but, well, I just did.

To say "the set of societal privileges that white people benefit from" implies that there is absolutely no dispute over this "concept." When you claim, without any neutralizing language "white people benefit from" things, it's an absolute affirmation as to the...."scientific" validity of this concept. There is no science behind this concept. It is a theory proposed within non-scientific disciplines. It is social commentary, and one especially sensitive to warrant steps to move toward NPOV.

How this first sentence has been able to escape by, and with locked-privileges, is embarrassing to wikipedia. This article needs to be NPOV. Since there's no science behind this concept, the article needs to be edited as such.

And please, alf laylah whatever, before you go evangelizing against this comment, please understand that some academic just positing that something exists is not evidence.98.225.170.214 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What is it "that some academic just positing that something exists" is not evidence of?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not evidence of true reality. It's just evidence that one can imagine a causal relationship in societal terms and write a book about their idea. The fact that white privilege is so popular among academic circles can easily be attributed to the politics of academia rather than any scientific rationale. This is because it's nearly impossible to scientifically prove anything that comes out of sociology. So what's the harm with NPOV?

I see in basically the (synonym/antonym, depending on how you look at it) of this word, white guilt has the important neutralizer, that it's "said to be felt" by some white people. Let's stop pretending leftist morality is scientific, and reinstate true NPOV.98.225.170.214 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So your position is that this article is premised on the actual existence in the world of something called "white privilege" rather than being about the concept of white privilege, which is an academic description of something which may or may not actually exist? It's the presumption of concrete existence that's worrying you?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. The article is written as if the concept is an established fact. It's not.98.225.170.214 (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The concept is an established fact. That is, there is in fact such a concept. You're worried that the article states that the concept refers to something in the world other than itself, right? That is, if this were unicorn, there would be places where it was too much like horse? Can you point to problematic sentences that state that there is objectively something in the world other than the concept to which the phrase "white privilege" refers? Maybe we can work on them.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty expansive definition of what an "established fact" is. Since the only fact we can really agree upon is that it's a concept, it should be our priority not to conflate facts with the opinions of the adherents of the concept. I already referenced the first (and, considering readership, the most important) sentence of the article: "White privilege refers to the set of societal privileges that white people benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces". Think about what we just agreed upon: it's a concept. Do we see the word "concept" any where in this sentence? It reads like a factual statement: white privilege is a reality of the world, not in that it's a concept, in that it is actually true. If this page should actually refer to a theoretical concept, it should be defined as such in the very first sentence. We shouldn't potentially mislead readers into thinking this is scientifically proven. 98.225.170.214 (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I just mean that it's an established fact that there is such a concept. That doesn't seem like such an expansive definition. Obviously there's such a concept, because we're talking about it, just like there's a concept of a rock and the concept of a leprechaun. Both concepts are equally real as concepts. It is typical in the English language to talk about concepts in exactly the same manner that we talk about concrete objects in the world. See e.g. Natural and legal rights. Do you think political rights are scientifically provable to be real, for instance? Or Liberty. Is its existence scientifically provable? Free market is a good one. Can such things be scientifically proven to exist? Are you perhaps trying to argue that it is not scientifically provable that there are any privileges that white people get by virtue of being white?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a major difference between white privilege and Liberty, Free market, etc. The latter are concepts that are personal political preferences, they are idealized states and ideas that are arguable for the future. White privilege is seen as an actual historical / social reality. It is not even a "concept" in this regard, it is a hypothesis. Proponents of white privilege actually assert that white privilege exists as a fact. Proponents of liberty are just arguing for the concept of liberty. This is why additional language to ensure NPOV is necessary. 98.225.170.214 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that people who are in favor of liberty don't believe that there is such a thing as liberty? They're fighting for something that they don't believe exists? Like people fighting to save unicorns from extinction? That doesn't seem plausible. How about Free will, then? This is a concept that no one will claim has been scientifically proven to exist, and yet, because of the nature of the English language, when we talk about it, we talk about it using sentences that are syntactically identical to those used to talk about rocks, watermelons, fairy godmothers or Sherlock Holmes. Also, I'm confused by what you mean by "proponents of white privilege." Surely you mean "opponents of white privilege." Your insistence that leaving the word "concept" out of the lead violates NPOV seems to me to display a basic misunderstanding of the way that the English language handles nouns.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Read my post over again. I do mean to say proponents. The proponents genuinely believe WP exists as a fact. "Opponents", the way I see it, would allege WP does not even exist. Also NPOV is not about making merely grammatically correct sentences. It's about actually having a neutral point of view. I never claimed the sentence was grammatically incorrect, I'm claiming it violates NPOV.

"The term denotes both obvious and less obvious unspoken advantages that white individuals may not recognize they have" - I mean come on. There's a difference between being grammatically accurate, even accurate as to the definition of WP, and appearing to endorse WP. When you use a word like "obvious" that can easily be read as a tacit endorsement of the hypothesis. Adding neutral words like concept in the first sentence and "allegedly obvious" would increase the value of the article re: NPOV and can be easily edited to escape any pesky grammatical adjustments.98.225.170.214 (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about syntax, not grammar. Because, in English syntax, there is typically no distinction made between hypothetical concepts such as free will or white privilege and concretely existing objects such as rocks, it is in fact a violation of NPOV to insist that the word "concept" be used to qualify the concept of white privilege in this article. Furthermore, it's not so easy as you seem to think to distinguish between ethereal concepts such as justice or white privilege and more concrete concepts such as rocks or horses. You have about as strong an argument for insisting that the first sentence of the article "horse" be edited to say that "The horse (Equus ferus caballus) is a concept that refers to one of two extant subspecies of Equus ferus" as you do for insisting on it here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because you prefer to put up blinders and pretend this isn't a NPOV dispute, but a technical question of English grammar/syntax/whatever you want to say next, doesn't mean I don't have a legitimate complaint about this article. I acknowledge you don't want to change the article, I acknowledge you refuse to see any problem with it. I'll just wait for other people to see this conversation and weigh in on their own, I know I'll get nowhere with you. 98.225.170.214 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

OK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 98.225.... that the way the introductory paragraph is written is too declaratory. I think the best way to approach the problem is to give the concept some context. For example, we could follow the same approach taken in the article Authenticity (philosophy), on the Existentialist concept. That article begins,

"Authenticity is a technical term used in psychology as well as existentialist philosophy and aesthetics. In existentialism, authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one's own personality, spirit, or character, despite external pressures; the conscious self is seen as coming to terms with being in a material world and with encountering external forces, pressures and influences which are very different from, and other than, itself."

This sort of approach has the dual benefit of letting the reader know the area in which the term is commonly used, and of not making factual statements on matters where such statements are difficult. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you propose an actual sentence in terms of this article, then? There's nothing about conceptuality in the example you give. Plus, I don't understand what you mean by the word "factual."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Down to business, then

Okay. So let's put this side by side with another wikipedia entry on the concept of Manifest Destiny. "In the 19th century, Manifest Destiny was the widely held belief in the United States that American settlers were destined to expand throughout the continent."

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the set of societal privileges that white people benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.)." In the first, we have a now widely discredited "concept" presented as such. The fact that it is characterized as a "belief" discredits it as an idea. The second, the idea of "White Privilege" does not get presented as a belief; it simply is, according to the start of the article. I mean, we could edit Manifest Destiny to say "In the 19th century, Manifest Destiny was the divine ordinance that American settlers were destined to expand throughout the continent." But that would be dumb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.191.22.14 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

By "factual," I am referring to the opening sentence in the lede:

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the set of societal privileges that white people benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.)"

The article states categorically that white people are the beneficiary of societal privileges. As in the article on Authenticity, we should give the context of the idea we are defining. I would propose,

White privilege is a term used in Critical Race Theory and Whiteness Theory, which posit that societal advantages experienced by white people beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces constitute a set of entrenched privileges.

I think that definition is closer to how the concept "white privilege" is actually used, and it places the term in the context from which it originates and in which it most often appears. It doesn't say that the concept is valid or invalid, because that's not the purpose of the Wikipedia entry. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, we could go on picking concepts out of the pedia all day according to whether the concepts they cover are identified as concepts, but you see, even in your proposed sentence the slippery nature of English syntax has led you astray, Thucydides411. You propose:

White privilege is a term used in Critical Race Theory and Whiteness Theory, which posit that societal advantages experienced by white people beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces constitute a set of entrenched privileges.

Do you see that the clause which I've made green is speaking of such "societal advantages" as if they actually exist? You have used that green clause as the subject of a verb, for goodness sake. Being able to be used as the subject of a verb is actually a pretty reasonable definition for existence. You haven't solved the problem you claim to be worried about. I doubt you will be able to solve it, also, because English begs its speakers to treat all nouns and noun phrases as if they refer to actually existing things. The actual existence of the referent of a noun is a distinction that the English language abhors. You made the sentence longer and more convoluted without even managing to accomplish your goal. Thus I see no point in adopting your suggestion.

On to 163.191.22.14's point. Since they don't propose an edit to this article, I can't respond to that, but I will say that the parallel with manifest destiny isn't a good one. Does anyone question that a thing called "Manifest Destiny" existed in the 19th century? No? OK, so how's it parallel to this?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the proposed text I give above has the advantage of clearly putting the statement about the existence of societal advantages and privilege (which Alf highlights in green above) in context. In my view, this gives less of an impression that we are declaring the concept of white privilege correct or incorrect. It also gives a more accurate description, I think, of how the term white privilege is actually used. English may be slippery, but there are more objective and less objective ways of phrasing the introduction to this article. I think my proposed text is more objective than the current introduction, which gives no context to the statement about privileges. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused. What would it mean for a concept to be correct or incorrect? I'm guessing you don't think that there are things in the world to which the phrase "white privilege" refers, but I'm wary of guessing your views from your statements. Is that a reasonable guess? And then maybe you want the lead sentence to reflect the possibility that the term "white privilege" has no referents? Also, your proposed sentence, it just occurs to me, doesn't actually say anything about "white privilege" other than that it's a term used in critical race theory and whiteness theory, and the rest of the sentence is describing what those theories posit. Shouldn't the first sentence of an article actually describe something about the subject of the article. Your proposal is parallel to starting the article on electrons by saying "Electron is a concept used in physics, which posits that there are teensy particles that no one can see whose properties help to explain observable phenomena." Can you maybe propose a first sentence that actually talks about the phrase in question?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

My patience is wearing thin here, Alf. Are you really confused? Do you really not know what it would mean for a concept to be correct or incorrect? Should I quote from the dictionary for you? Most importantly, do you have any constructive suggestions for how to improve my proposed wording? If you think it is not clear enough that the main body of the proposed text refers to white privilege, then it can be amended to the following:

In Critical Race Theory and Whiteness Theory, white privilege refers to the concept that societal advantages experienced by white people beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces constitute a set of entrenched privileges.

If you think this could be worded more clearly, then by all means, suggest an improvement. The important points are that it gives the context for the term, specifies more clearly what the term means (i.e., that a certain set of advantages considered universal constitute a rigid set of privileges), and that it doesn't speak about the theory as if it is correct or incorrect in its appraisal of society. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I am genuinely confused. If you can explain what it might mean to say a concept is correct or incorrect I would appreciate it very much. I doubt you'll find an explanation in a dictionary, though. Perhaps you could start a new section for that discussion. Also, I think the lead sentence is fine as it is, so I don't really have any motive to suggest an improvement.

Your proposal, though, makes no sense to me. The current sentence doesn't speak about whether "the theory" (by which I am assuming you mean the theory that such advantages actually exist in the world, please correct me if I'm wrong) is correct or incorrect either. Furthermore, your proposal is inaccurate in that it states that the term "white privilege" is used only in critical race theory and in whiteness theory, which is not true. The term has much more general use.

As I said, my feeling is that you don't want the lead to say explicitly that there are any such privileges. In my view the current lead sentence does not make this claim, so I don't see why it needs to be changed at all. Your proposal is (a) barely coherent and (b) makes exactly as much of a claim of existence as the current lead sentence, so it doesn't seem to me to be an improvement.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

We'll see what other people think, then. I'm not interested in discussing with you what it means for a concept to be correct or incorrect. If you don't view white privilege as a concept that could possibly not conform with reality, I submit that you are not familiar with what the term "white privilege" means, or how it is commonly used. I've already explained the rationale for my proposal, and why I think it is more objective than the current introductory sentence. I don't think that additional explanation is required. So far, it looks like a few people have the same concerns as I do about the neutrality of the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

OK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Reboot

I think Alf is missing the fact that the first sentence actually doesn't describe what WP is, it only describes what it refers to. After the first sentence, an ignorant reader would be perfectly reasonable in asking "what actually is WP: is it a theory, a law, a fact of life like the sun?" There really is no description as to where this term came from and that's precisely why it reads like a factual statement of reality. The fact that it is a concept needs to be explicated in some way. How about:

"White privilege is the concept, developed within Critical Race Theory, which refers to the set of societal privileges that white people...."

Can you seriously oppose this edit, Alf? 98.225.170.214 (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's not bad. I think "concept which refers" is awkward, but evidently it's not uncommon. My only problem with it is that it's false that the concept of white privilege was developed within critical race theory and that it's redundant to say that it's a concept, since "concept" means something like "an idea formed by combining other ideas," and I don't think that anyone's going to come to this article thinking that white privilege is a physical object rather than a concept. If you're dead set on the word concept, though, how about

White privilege is a concept which refers to the set of social privileges that white people..."

Now, what in the world is the benefit of that over what we have now, except that it's longer? But I suppose compromise is a good thing. I took the liberty of substituting "social" for "societal," because (a) I don't like the word "societal," (b) it's a synonym for "social," and (c) according to the Google n-gram viewer the rest of the world agrees with me. Also, I think the indefinite article is better here, since there may be more than one such concept.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps my comment got lost in the shuffle, so I will repeat because of it's relevance to this conversation. In considering clarifying the perspective of this article, please consider this point. "White privilege" reads here like an accepted set of facts, though the ideas presented are actually subjective. The concept pivots entirely on the idea that there is some kind of separation between "whites" and "people of color" (everyone else). But we already know that the term "people of color" is rooted in white supremacy, and is used in Critical Race Theory as an alliance of minority groups to oppose the white majority - effectively eliminating "whites" from it's human color spectrum. This is fundamentally problematic. For example, though Asian and Latin peoples are included in the "people of color" construct, many are actually lighter in complexion than some European or "white" peoples. There is no actual scientific merit for this separation - it is political in nature. In reality there is one range, from light to dark in the spectrum of Human complexion. Using terms like "people of color" without explaining it's political nature creates a fundamental problem. The neutrality that would contextualize this questionable political construct is absent - it speaks AS IF one could make such sweeping generalizations about "race". When this happens, Wikipedia becomes a vehicle for political rhetoric, not an encyclopedia of knowledge. "White privilege" like "Critical Race Theory" should be presented as the political construct that it is.EyePhoenix (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I noticed your comment and was just ignoring it. If we really must discuss it, maybe you could start a few new sections for your different claims and also stop talking about what Wikipedia is going to become if we don't do what you want, an argument which rarely convinces anyone of anything.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

My what a hostile comment. Is that what "assuming good faith" looks like Alf? You've actually mischaracterized my comment - it's really so much simpler, and not at as you described; I'm supporting those who have expressed concerns about the neutrality of the article. Neutrality can be achieved by contextualizing the subject's political nature. EyePhoenix (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"Believe a Lie...and Be Damned."

There is little need for the references and works of the biased. Look about you. Go back home. Search archeives and libraries. Watch the old movies. "White Flight" was the result of crime, corruption, and loss of value in established communities, neighborhoods, churches, and businesses. Who were, are, and remain the master propagandists? What were their stated objectives? Who benefitted from these usurptions? Who have been and still are the masters of usuary? Who profitted from slave labor? Who profitted from the migration of freed slaves to northern cities? Have you worked for companies that were undermined by theft, sabotage, lawsuits, and dissent? Who profitted from those businesses moving on? Information from the government says that whites are the majority of government employees. Where do they hide? Whenever I go into an office or building I see a vast majority of negroes. Some are extremely old. Shouldn't those positions be held by young people with children and families to support? Just try calling a government facility. Who answers the phones? The old saying is still true. DL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.155.149 (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't really the forum to be debating the existence of white privilege or the merits of the concept. This should be a discussion about how to get the glaringly biased portions written in a non-inflammatory manner. MissPlace (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Housing

Just because something can be quoted from a source does not mean that the source is accurate or appropriate to use here. I am referring to the sentence "But "most white families have acquired their net worth from the appreciation of property that they secured under conditions of special privilege in a discriminatory housing market."" This statement is completely unsupported. You can not assert with any degree of factual accuracy that most white families have acquired their net worth from the appreciation of property of any kind, let alone property "secured under conditions of special privilege." Even if every white family 80 years ago had acquired property in a discriminatory housing market, it wouldn't account for inflation which would make the actual accrual of additional wealth non-existent, nor would it account that many of those original families would no longer have ownership over those properties.MissPlace (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a prime example of the problem this Wiki article suffers from: extremely broad generalizations on the basis of a very narrow subsection of scholarship. The generalization given above by MissPlace is probably incorrect, as most families derive the largest share of their income from wages and salaries. If it is true, it needs much stronger sourcing. If the statement is actually true, it also needs more neutral phrasing. Saying that a discriminatory market grants people not subject to discrimination a "special privilege" is tacit acceptance of the theory we're describing, white privilege. If the majority conducts transactions in the market on a uniform set of terms, but a minority is excluded, the standard terminology outside of white privilege theory would be to say that the minority suffers from discrimination, rather than that the majority enjoys special privileges. "Special privileges" normally denote anomalous perks given to a select few, rather than standard conditions denied to a certain group.

This is just an illustration of the type of writing we should avoid in this article. Much of the article ignores the fact that issues of discrimination and inequality are treated in different ways in different parts of academia. We can describe how white privilege theory views racial discrimination and inequality, without implicitly assuming that its analysis is correct, and without reducing white privilege theory to the mere recognition of racial disparities. That would make for a more neutral and informative article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Saying, "I disagree" doesn't count for much. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Dubious statement tags in housing section

@Thucydides411:: Didn't I rewrite those sentences? I thought I did, and in such a way that they'd match the info in the source I added, so it's hard to see how the above section critical of the "housing" section still applies. Lipsitz flat out says "The appreciated value of owner-occupied homes constitutes the single greatest source of wealth for white Americans. It is the factor most responsible for the disparity between blacks and whites with respect to wealth." What more would you like by way of support?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see an economist making such a statement. It would help to have a source from the economic field, because they might also be more precise in what they say. Are we talking about the greatest source of wealth for the average white American, the greatest total source summed over all white Americans, the greatest source of wealth for white Americans who own homes? Who, precisely, are we talking about? As it is, it's an overly broad statement, coming from a non-expert source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)