Talk:White privilege/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Wealth

Alf, please quote directly from Oliver et al. to support the following statements:

• "Whites have historically had more opportunities to accumulate wealth"
• "Some of the institutions of wealth creation amongst American citizens were open exclusively to whites."

The second statement could well be true, but it needs citation. The first statement is probably too broad to even possibly be true, but it doesn't look like Oliver et al. say this on cited provided pages. Please correct me if I missed their statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Second: "To understand the sedimentation of racial inequality, particularly with respect to wealth, is to acknowledge the way in which structural disadvantages have been layered one upon the other to produce black disadvantage and white privilege. Returning again to the FHA of 1934, we may recall that the federal government placed its credit behind private loans to homebuyers, thus putting home ownership within the reach of millions of citizens for the first time. White homeowners who had taken advantage of FHA financing policies saw the value of their homes increase dramatically, especially during the 1970s when housing prices tripled."

First: "Practically every circumstance of bias and discrimination against blacks has produced a circumstance and opportunity of positive gain for whites. When black workers were paid less than white workers, white workers gained a benefit; when black businesses were confined to the segregated black market, white businesses received the benefit of diminished competition; when FHA policies denied loans to blacks, whites were the beneficiaries of the spectacular growth of good housing and housing equity in the suburbs."

Are my summaries dishonest?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Be more specific in your summaries, and attribute them. The source is discussing housing practices. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I personally see no reason to attribute, but I wouldn't object were you to do so. You did an excellent job in your last attribution edit.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Critical race theory

Do any of the editors who've been pushing to have this article be about a "concept" in "critical race theory" have any evidence that it's *only* discussed by critical race theorists. For instance, "quark" is a concept in physics. There's no problem with that because anyone who's analyzing quarks is by definition doing physics. Something parallel is being asserted about white privilege vis-a-vis critical race theorists. Is there a source for this? It seems to me from a perfunctory look through the Oxford Reference collection that "white privilege" is a term used by all manner of social scientists to describe about what the lead of this article says it describes.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

There isn't an accurate parallel to be drawn between quarks and white privilege. We have plenty of sources, including two that I just added, documenting the origin of "white privilege" in Critical Race Theory. The lede should do two things that it didn't previously do: 1) it should give the context of the term and 2) it should be phrased neutrally. You've been pushing a very hard-line stance in the lede, that it has to affirm the validity of the concept we are describing. At the same time, you've been telling the editors who object to this that you don't understand our objections, which I simply don't believe. We are not discussing a phenomenon, but rather an interpretive framework for viewing power relations in American society (although "white privilege" has been analyzed in other societies as well). Read the definitions that we give in the footnotes, and it will become more clear to you that we are discussing something more than a simple empirical observation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Your references establish that critical race theorists use the concept of white privilege. They don't establish that white privilege is a concept strictly used by critical race theorists, although that's what your reformulation of the lead asserted. Do you have any proof that white privilege is only used by critical race theorists?

Furthermore, if you think my stance is that the lead "has to affirm the validity of the concept we are describing" then you've badly misread my position. I think that the phrase "validity of a concept" is a category error, I don't believe it makes any semantic sense, and I certainly don't want the lead to affirm it. I would just as soon see the lead affirm the furiousness of sleeping colorless green ideas. What I want is for the lead to use the English language in the way that the English language is customarily used to describe abstract concepts, rather than to include a bunch of minimizing hedges that aren't even supported by sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're claiming not to understand the objection. I simply cannot assume good faith in the face of such a blatant refusal to acknowledge the existence of a possible objection to categorically stating in the lede that white people benefit from societal privileges above people of color in similar circumstances. Why do you have such a strong objection to stating the contention in a way that doesn't state or deny its validity?

Similarly, the sources detail the development of the concept of white privilege. The concept this article is discussing does have its origins in Critical Race Theory. To some extent, it is now used outside of that field, although often in a much less precise manner, in the same way as people might talk about id and ego outside of psychoanalysis. White privilege is still concept a term primarily associated with Critical Race Theory. That's something the lede should acknowledge. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a mind reader. I have absolutely no idea what it means for a concept to be valid or invalid. You seem to think I'm pretending not to understand but I really don't. Why are you so resistant to explaining what you mean by "validity of a concept"? You do seem to mean that a concept is "valid" if the thing it refers to exists, given your remarks above. Is this right? I'll respond on the basis of that assumption, but please remember, I'm not attributing that position to you, but merely assuming it arguendo so you'll stop accusing me of whatever it is you simply cannot assume good faith over.

You ask why I don't want "to acknowledge the existence of a possible objection to categorically stating in the lede" that the term "white privilege" might not actually exist. I don't want to because that's not how native speakers of the English language discuss abstract concepts. It's just not. What is Justice? Is it a concept of moral rightness defined by various ruling elites to solidify their power and which is claimed to be based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity and fairness? No, it's not. It's a concept which has some explanatory force, so we define it, explain how it's used, and then go on about how some people think there's no such thing as justice or whatever. Same thing here. You don't thing that the noun phrase "white privilege" refers to anything? So what? The English language doesn't make a strong distinction between existing and nonexisting referrents of nouns.

Regarding critical race theory: We need sources that actually say that. The noun phrase "white privilege" is in common parlance now, wherever it came from. Look at the ngram viewer. It casts some doubt on your theory, so sources that support it are necessary.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thucydides411, the lede does say that. "Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept of "white privilege" to analyze how racism and racialized society affect the lives of white persons." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

We're arguing about what the consensus lede should be. While we're discussing this, it is important to keep in mind that the current lede does not represent a consensus, any more than the lede I support. There have been several users here, and numerous IP editors, disputing the lede as it currently stands. The most glaring problem that people notice about the lede is that it states, as a fact, that white people benefit from privileges above people in the same socio-economic station (alf, I hope you understand that this statement could potentially be false). The second, more fundamental problem with the lede is that it does not actually accurately define "white privilege," i.e. as a framework developed in Critical Race Studies for analyzing racial discrimination and socio-economic disparities, which frames the question not as one of rights and goods denied to a minority, but rather as privileges and status given to the majority, and which often treats the status of the majority as a type of commodity or investment.

The second problem is manifested not only in the lede, but throughout the body of the article, which often reads as a list of forms of discrimination and disparity, rather than as a description of what any of that has to do with white privilege. For example, the housing section gives a pretty unfocused list of discriminatory policies, and arguments about how past and present practices affect racial wealth disparities. As this is an article about white privilege, and not wealth disparities or discriminatory housing practices, the section should really focus on how housing practices are argued to create a privileged status for whites. In particular, it should be shortened to one paragraph, and deal primarily with the argument that discriminatory policies protect the "investment in whiteness." That is, after all, what separates the Critical Race Theorists' analyses of the situation from other analyses. I recognize that alf and Malik do not think that we are discussing a CRT concept, but you should look at the sources the section is based on, and ask yourself what field of academia they're associated with. We are discussing a CRT concept in this article, and should focus on the arguments that field makes. Right now, we have a coat rack. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, I agree that this article is crappy. Last year or sometime I tried to trim it down severely so we could start building it back up from scratch, but there was no support for that. It's weirdly repetitive and it's almost too hard to see how to deal with. On the other hand, I really don't think you're paying attention to my arguments about the first sentence. You say The most glaring problem that people notice about the lede is that it states, as a fact, that white people benefit from privileges above people in the same socio-economic station (alf, I hope you understand that this statement could potentially be false). The fact that at this point in the conversation you're asking me whether I understand it could potentially be false makes me think you haven't read what I've written at all. What I am saying is that it doesn't matter if your sentence is false or not. Your insistence on hedging it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way our language handles theoretical concepts. For instance, the first sentence of electron says The electron (symbol: e−) is a subatomic particle with a negative elementary electric charge. It doesn't say The electron (symbol: e−) is a theoretical concept of a subatomic particle with a negative elementary electric charge used by particle physicists to explain various observable phenomena in a mathematically and conceptually efficient way, although no one has ever seen one because they're too small. In English we talk about concepts the same way whether they're instantiated by anything real or not. This is generally a good thing about English, because there's not that clear a distinction anyway, and it's not that useful of a distinction for numerous reasons. The hedges you want to introduce make the lead read like gibberish and don't add any neutrality at all. Next, as I said, I think you're flat out wrong about "white privilege" being a CRT concept only. I think you're committing some form of the fallacy of the converse when you assert that. Maybe it would be better to start new sections for the various problems you discuss, since there are so many.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

When you compare social science constructs with fundamental particles, you make the mistake of comparing something which is contested and open to disagreement with something that isn't. Nobody outside of a few cranks doubts the existence of electrons, but white privilege is a theory that one particular area of social studies uses, but which is altogether controversial, especially outside of Critical Race Theory. White privilege is not merely the recognition of various forms of discrimination and economic disparities, but rather an entire theory built around a certain analysis of those disparities. This way of viewing disparities, which asserts that they create positive privileges for the group that does not face them, as well as an investment in an intangible property, whiteness, comes out of Critical Race Theory. Look at the people who are heavily cited throughout the article if you doubt this - George Lipsitz, Cheryl Harris, Noel Ignatiev, Richard Delgado, David Roediger, Kimberlé Crenshaw - and note that they are identified with CRT. The term has been spun off into a few related fields, like Whiteness Studies, which I mentioned in the reformulated lede. Like terms from other fields that gain a certain level of pop recognition, it is now sometimes used somewhat loosely by people. If you look at the types of academic articles we cite here, though, they're still mostly from CRT, reflecting the genesis of the theory of white privilege. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I started out comparing it with the social scientific concept of Justice upthread and you ignored me. I'm glad the electron got your attention. Now we can move to the humanities. Look at authorial intent, another thing which a lot of people don't believe really exists. See how they don't say that in the lead? I really think you're missing my point. It doesn't matter whether white privilege exists, maybe exists, probably doesn't exist, or definitely doesn't exist. We talk about it in the same way in English. In English "the set of advantages which accrue" or whatever it says already means "the set of zero or more advantages which accrue." Finally, we've been around the CRT thing a number of times now. Sure, CRT people talk a lot about white privilege now, and that's acknowledged in the lead. They didn't invent the term, they didn't invent the concept, and it was written about before they even existed, so we shouldn't enshrine them in the very first sentence. I really think that the biggest problem with this article is that it's such a morass of bullshit added by student projects that no one wants to take on the task of making the body make sense so we can just write the lead as a summary of that. I know I don't.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't talk about objective facts in the same way we talk about contested propositions. My proposed lede is a good example of how one might discuss a claim which may or may not be true:

In Critical Race Theory and Whiteness Studies, white privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the concept that white people occupy a privileged position in society, and are conferred a wide range of benefits above those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.).

(The only change here is to use the better term "Whiteness Studies"). This is a legitimate use of English to note that we are referring to an interpretive framework, not an objective fact, like the existence of electrons. The second value of the above description is that is actually describes how the term "white privilege" is actually employed in most scholarly works. Plenty of people write about racial discrimination and socio-economic disparities, without using the language of white privilege. What distinguishes white privilege is the idea that discrimination creates a privileged status for the majority group. The concept is often extended to argue that this privilege turns the majority identity into a form of property whose value is defended, consciously or unconsciously, by its holders. That's the set of ideas this article is describing.

It's also inaccurate to say that CRT talk a lot about white privilege now. I'd actually say just the opposite. The term was largely developed within CRT, and has more recently found broader usage. That's why I mentioned the list of authors above. They're people who brought about the wide use of the term "white privilege." -Thucydides411 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Propositions are one thing, concepts are another. What does it mean for a concept to be contested? The objection you raised before is that it's possible that the noun "white privilege" doesn't refer. My arguments were based on the fact that in English nouns that don't refer and nouns that do refer and nouns that might refer are all discussed the same way. Like Justice. Do you believe there is such a thing as Justice? Why? Do you have a citation from an expert that proves that Justice exists? No, obviously, and yet we don't use the fact that no one can prove the existence of Justice to floof up the lead sentence of that article with various objections to the existence of the referent. Now you want to talk about contested *propositions*? What's the proposition that's being asserted in the first sentence? There is none. Also, did you not look at the ngram viewer results I linked to? Your claim that the term was developed within CRT is belied by the fact that it's been in wide usage in English since the early 60s and in less wide usage for centuries before that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You're not dealing with this seriously. You seem to be saying that the language I proposed above has no meaning in the English language. Anyone can read it and see what the difference is between what I propose and the lede as it is currently stated in the article. I'm not going to discuss with you further what it means for concepts to be right or wrong, because it's pure sophistry.

An ngram history isn't much of an argument. If we were to go by ngrams, I could prove that Einstein didn't invent General Relativity, as you can see here. The phrase has been in use since the 1850s. What would be more interesting is an actual sampling of the early works to use the phrase. The phrase "white skin privilege," as we know it today, really seems to emerge in the 1960s. One of the early citations, "Labor, Free and Slave", published in 1955, mentions it as a term used by the New Left. A background section on the history of the term could use some sources documenting its early usage in left politics. It's still a term that, based on the citations you find in Google Scholar and the references we have here in the article, is most closely associated with CRT. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm dealing with you seriously. What you propose has meaning in the English language. It means that you want to press the point home that there "may" be no advantages to being white. Suppose instead of writing what I just wrote, instead I said: "What you propose may reasonably be considered to have what passes for meaning in the academic register of the family of dialects that together constitute what's known by the linguistically empowered as "the English language," a concept that is used to hide the wide variability of speech patterns and lingual ethnomethodologies behind a false mask of language unity in order to disempower those whose speech differs from the syntactically correct." Would you not feel that I was being aggressive? Even thought the concept of "the English language" doesn't actually refer to anything in reality, I've been doing you the favor of speaking of "the English language" because, in the English language, we speak of things the same way whether they exist or not. It's the same thing with "white privilege." As soon as you say something like "white privilege is a noun phrase which is used by a bunch of possibly delusional people to refer to a bunch of things which they possibly made up out of whole cloth" you're not writing from a neutral point of view. If you don't understand this, it's hard to see how to convince you. Why don't you try engaging with the example of "Justice" for a while. Obviously there's no such thing as Justice in this world, because we're fallible people. We have an ideal view of something we call Justice, and it's never once been instantiated in reality, and yet, we don't say in the lead of that article something like "Justice is the name for an ideal concept which doesn't actually exist but is more or less approximated in reality, depending on who you ask." It's just not how the language works. How is this different? Do you disagree that the definitions of words are written in the same form whether or not they have any referents? And as far as CRT goes, how do your discoveries about the 1955 usage and the emergence in the 1960s square with your emphasis on CRT? When did CRT "emerge"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You call my arguments "sophistry" like it's a bad thing. Protagoras is one of my heroes: "πάντων χρημάτων μέτρον ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος, τῶν μὲν ὄντων ὡς ἔστιν, τῶν δὲ οὐκ ὄντων ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν." That might be our problem, here. I believe that man is the measure of all things; of that which is, that it is; of that which is not, that it is not, while you believe in objective reality that everyone would agree on if you just explain it to them clearly enough. I think it takes guns to establish objective reality, and then it goes away when your soldiers run out of bullets or refuse to fire on the crowd. What then?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I wrote a neutral description of what white privilege is, that doesn't prejudice the reader against it, and doesn't tell them flat out that whites are privileged, as if that were an objective fact that everyone agrees on. Your fear is that if we write the opening section in a neutral way, or mention that it is a term most strongly associated with and developed by CRT (with some involvement of other strains of the New Left), then people will get the impression that

"white privilege is a noun phrase which is used by a bunch of possibly delusional people to refer to a bunch of things which they possibly made up out of whole cloth"

The problem with this discussion is that it is a political discussion, not a discussion of what the more neutral phrasing is. It's clear enough from the history here that you're opposed to anything less than stating categorically in the lede that whites are privileged. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would recognize, reading over the talk page history, that your political beliefs are driving your editing here. I'm not demanding that my political beliefs be included in the article, and even were I to agree with you politically, I would feel embarrassed trying to so blatantly push an indefensible non-neutrality in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you're wrong about that. I have never once asserted in this discussion that white privilege exists in the world. I don't care whether it exists or not. My political beliefs are irrelevant to my position. My respect for the English language as used to convey information to our reader is my sole guide here. Have you not noticed that I keep saying that the current formulation doesn't say that whites are privileged? It does not say that. In English, as soon as one adds the kinds of hedges you've proposed adding, you are moving away from a neutral phraseology which neither asserts nor denies the existence of a referent to a non-neutral one which insinuates that the referent does not exist. Please, if your theory on neutral phrasing is so clear, try to explain why the lead sentence of Justice doesn't have hedges in it. It's an exactly parallel case, except that there's more evidence for the existence of white privilege than there is for the existence of justice.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me break in and say that critical race theory and whiteness studies are far from an exhaustive list of the domains in which white privilege is now a key term. A 2012 Essentials of Sociology textbook lists the term (Google Books link). It's used as a term in education policy research (as in here) We find reference here to interest in studying privilege in "psychology, sociology, women's studies, ethnic studies, social work, education, family therapy, and law." It would be fairly easy to document and cite the use and development of the concept across these domains. Now if this longer list were inserted in the lede, it would be unwieldy, but it probably also wouldn't make the concept seem appear marginal in the way Alf is concerned about. A fair question for Thucydides would be: would you feel comfortable with an opening sentence that mentioned "sociology, women's studies, and education policy" alongside critical race theory and whiteness studies?

Separately, in terms of the Wikipedia standards to be applied, I think this is pretty conclusive:

• "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." (from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable_science)

We have a theory here, with scores of reliable academic sources to back it up. Moreover, the idea that nonwhites face discrimination to some degree is a popular, majority view (see here, for example). So, to state that "white privilege" refers to a set of advantages for white people does not violate NPOV. Any criticism should come after the opening sentence.--Carwil (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Relation of white privilege to privilege as defined by Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld

There are no links between this article and that on Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, who defines eight legal concepts regarding relationships of individuals to each other. One of the eight concepts is Privilege (or Liberty), being the absence of a claim (right) against someone by someone else. Can these two articles support each other?

Jburdettelinn (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Infomal communication networks

I think the following sentences should be removed:

Under Employment and economics

"Since older white males predominantly control blue-collar trades, they are more likely to offer varying forms of assistance to those in their social network, often other whites.[citation needed] Assistance can be anything from job vacancy information, referrals, direct job recruitment, formal and informal training, and vouching behavior and leniency in supervision.[citation needed] Royster argues that this assistance, disproportionately available to whites, is an advantage that often puts black men at a disadvantage in the employment sector. According to Royster, "these ideologies provide a contemporary deathblow to working-class black men's chances of establishing a foothold in the traditional trades."[51]"

There is, clearly, no citation about these labour market trends and it seems to conflate and generalize Royster's work. Furthermore the "Privileges vs. rights" calls into question these informal communicaiton networks to begin with. I have deleted these sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs) 03:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Since someone re added these sentences perhaps they could explain why? ACanadianToker (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The first few sentences are similar to other parts of Roysters argument and the second is a direct quote. It is possible that it is paraphrasing the research in order to contextualise it and then following it with a direct quote. I don't know who wrote it though so I can't say. I think it reads fine as it is --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Justice section

Regarding this edit, which readded this material:

=== Justice === A 2002 [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] survey found that, although the likelihood of being [[Traffic stop|stopped]] by police did not differ significantly between white drivers and other races, black or Latino drivers were three times more likely to be searched than white drivers.<ref>Matthew R. Durose, Erica L. Schmitt and Patrick A. Langan, Contacts Between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, (Bureau of Justice Statistics), April 2005.</ref> Young white offenders are likely to receive lighter punishments than minorities in America. Black youth arrested for drug possession for the first time are incarcerated at a rate that is forty-eight times greater than the rate for white youth.<ref>"Young White Offenders get lighter treatment", 2000. The Tennessean. April 26: 8A.</ref><ref>Human Rights Watch, 2000. Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs. DC: May, Volume 12, No. 2.</ref> Incarceration rates are much higher among blacks and Hispanics than among whites. In 2007, the incarceration rate was 4,618 per 100,000 for black men and 1,747 per 100,000 for Hispanic men, compared to 773 per 100,000 for white men.<ref>William J. Sabol and Heather Couture, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2008), NCJ221944, p. 8

[http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pim07.pdf]</ref> [[Asian American]]s, however, have lower incarceration rates than any other racial group, including whites.<ref>{{cite web|title=Book Review: Asian-American Prisoners|url=http://www.colorlines.com/archives/2009/10/book_review_asianamerican_prisoners.html|publisher=ColorLines.com|last=Bennett|first=Hans|date=October 22, 2009|accessdate=August 10, 2013}}</ref> Pat K. Chew & Robert E. Kelley found that the federal judiciary remains predominantly White at 83% versus 17% minority composition. It has been argued that the race of judge and plaintiff play a role in the outcomes of judicial decision making.<ref>http://www3.law.harvard.edu/journals/hjrej/files/2012/11/HBK1021.pdf</ref>

I agree with Capitalismojo that this is original research. The sources do not mention white privilege, so for us to compile this as an example of white privilege is original research. I'd prefer that we either remove it or else find sources that specifically describe the phenomena in terms of white privilege.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I read the refs. You are correct in that they did not refer to "white privilege". Thus it failed verification and shoud be removed. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree; WP:OR. Best to remove it pending any updates. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A few of my books had essays on DWB (Driving while Black). I think the above are valid but demonstrate racism against blacks as opposed to white privileges. Like how disproportionate incarceration rates of blacks are not indicative of white privileges but instead (likely) institutional racism against blacks (like through MMS on crack vs powdered cocaine in the US). ACanadianToker (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't think many people would argue that white privilege is the cause of differential incarceration rates. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism?

Turning into forum discussion and not about improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is there no criticism section of this article? surely for it to be NPOV it needs a different side of the argument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.54.108 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Criticism isn't supposed to be segregated into a separate section, although that has become a de facto standard. See WP:CRITICISM. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Malik is correct. Criticism sections are to be avoided. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC) This article is extremely biased. It presents white privilege as a scientifically-determined fact rather than a social sciences hypothesis. It also presents little or no criticism of the concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.3.236 (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC) This whole damn article is racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.46.196 (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC) This article is problematic and needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.137.110 (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC) There is nothing problematic or racist about this article; however, racist individuals, individuals who hate anyone who isn't white and male, or the infamous white supremacists who infest many websites on the Internet, naturally feel offended by this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.225.112 (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph.

Dead horse. Take the discussion to the relevant section of this talk page... there's plenty of them. Also result of canvassing.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a set of societal privileges that white people benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic circumstances.[note 1][neutrality is disputed] The term denotes both obvious and less obvious unspoken advantages that white persons may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice.[1] These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth; presumed greater social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely.[2] The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal.[3][4] It can be compared to and/or combined with the concept of male privilege. The main problem with this paragraph, is it is completely biased, assuming that white privilege does exist, rather than stating the idea, in a non biased way, the edits I would make are as follows.¥ White privilege, (or white skin privilege), is a CONCEPT of a set SUPPOSED societal privielges, that (Caucasoids) are believed to benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic circumstances. The term denotes SUPPOSED advantages, both covert and overt,which are BELIEVED to be separate from traditional racism, and other prejudices. These ideas include cultural affirmations of one's own worth; assumed greater social status; and MORE freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak MORE freely. The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal. It is often compared to and/or combined with the concept of male privilege. ¥Aadly225 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)¥

Race Traitor Section

I added in the section on race traitors from the whiteness studies page. I removed several lines and edited a few words. I think it is pertinent to the concept of white privilege. A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The additions were removed a few days ago because they were "unsourced" I have since condensed and readded a race traitor section with a link to the whiteness studies page. A Canadian Toker (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

People of Color vs. 'non-white' people.

This article has the tag: The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Also, this article has sections related to South Africa, Europe and Australia. Part of the issue with this tag is the use of the term people of color.

I do not think that using the words 'people of color' is appropriate for two main reasons:

1. People of color is primarily a US term

 From the relevant page: "...a term used primarily in the United States to describe any person who is not white." 
 

2. The term, while seeking to be inclusive, is meaningless in the context of this article

  This page describes societal privileges that white people receive in contrast to the experiences of people who are not white. 
  

The term 'people of color' is preferred by US academics because of their misgivings about describing non-white people in a negative way (as something they are not) and because the word minority could conjure up images of inferiority. The issues with minority or non-white people has no bearing on the fact that this article refers to societal privileges that white people (positively defined) receive in contrast to people who are not white (negatively defined). The people not receiving white-privilege are, by virtue of the fact that they are not social beneficiaries of white-privilege, automatically negatively defined -> they are non-white people.

Considering this I propose that the introductory sentence, and all other references to people who do not benefit from white-privilege in this article (i.e. non white people) be reworded to non-white people. A Canadian Toker (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have since replaced people of color with non-white people. I changed a total of two instances of it in the article (leaving 'people of color' intact in the quotes). A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone had readded 'people of color' to the lead sentence. I've removed it with my Bold discussed here Talk:White_privilege#Lead_As_of_July_8.2C_2014 Also I missed one in the Australia section and have since replaced it with non-white people A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

In Europe Section

I have deleted the in Europe section about Anders Brevik. There is only one source I see making the assocation between those killings and white privilege. Furthermore, it's had an expansion needed tag for almost two years. A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

-In Europe-

Commenting on the Anders Behring Breivik trial, Priyamvada Gopal of Cambridge wrote that while Black and Muslim aggression in white societies is widely seen as pathologies reflecting problems in society, white terrorism is treated radically different due to the invisibility of whiteness.

References

Theory in lede

I was sent to this article by the Suggest Bot. It was in a list of unencyclopedic articles to review. It seems that is correct. This is an academic theory, not an indisputable fact. I have adjusted the lede accordingly. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for removing that stuff about traffic stops. I think you were right to do so. Secondly, if we're going to ignore the multiple Kb up-page of discussion about the substance of your second edit and reboot the conversation, perhaps you would care to explain what you see as the distinction between "an academic theory" and "an indisputable fact." Thirdly, if there is a distinction to be made, perhaps you would care to explain how it justifies your final edit to the lead sentence?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

So you've "seen talk." Great. Now use it. First of all, your version of the lead is illiterate: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to a theory that there are a set of societal privileges" doesn't mean anything. The phrase doesn't "refer to a theory." If it did, you'd be able to name the theory it refers to. What is it? Second, and more important, when you contrast "academic theory" with "indisputable fact" you're making a category error. Theories are made up of postulated entities. White privilege is a postulated entity in a theory. Facts are kinds of propositions rather than postulated entities. Why don't you try to articulate your objection instead of avoiding discussion?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I find the current lede sentence formulation to be non-encyclopedic. This is an an academic theory, perhaps better described as an academic term of art. From my reading, this has been discussed here before on this page. Everyone seems to acknowledge that it is part of CRT. It is a term that has come out of the academic left (see Critical Theory). The current formulation leads the reader to believe that this is a fact, that there are a large set of (hidden) benefits that come from color of "whites" skin. That's fine, but it is hardly a non-controversial statement. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I found "theory" to be the proper term to use after googling White Privilege and read this] from the Socialist Worker Magazine. There were many dozens of other RS refs that also described it as a "theory" so it seemed the common name or description for this. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I note also that the (academic) editor of Racism.org and WhitePrivilege.org refers to white privilege as a "hypothesis" at his University of Dayton web page. QUOTE: In that sense, the definition is like a working hypothesis, subject to change and adjustment as we accumulate and study more and more facts. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, "this" is not an academic theory. You're closer to the mark when you call it an academic term of art. That's at least not a category error. Do you see how your SW article distinguishes between "privilege theory," a theory, and "white privilege," a postulated entity that's part of the theory? That's a vital distinction that your edit fails to make. I doubt you can find a single source that refers to "white privilege" per se as a "theory" rather than as an element of a theory. Second, you claim that "The current formulation leads the reader to believe that this is a fact, that there are a large set of (hidden) benefits that come from color of "whites" skin." As a matter of semantics, this is wrong. In the English language when we discuss theoretical entities, such as "white privilege" or "electrons" or "authorial intent" or "natural selection," we don't generally insert hedges about their existence. They're all treated on a par syntactically. Thus, even if you manage to propose a coherent sentence that incorporates your opinion that there's no such thing as white privilege it will still violate NPOV, since theoretical entities aren't discussed in such terms in English. Of course it's a "hypothesis." That's what theories are made of. Like the theory of evolution. It's a theory, and natural selection is a hypothetical element of the theory. Like the theory of quantum chromodynamics. It's a theory, and quarks are hypothetical entities of the theory. You're confused about the meaning of the word "hypothesis" if you think it has anything to do with factual existence.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You see the problem about using term of art is that there are solid Reliable Source refs that use "theory" in place of "term of art." (Huffington Post. The Guardian. Politico. Buzzfeed. etc...) Policy requires that we use the Reliable Source even if I were to prefer something else. The sources say "theory" that's why I used that word. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Give examples of sources that call "white privilege" per se a theory.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Beyond those above you mean? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those does. The SW one is about "privilege theory" and the other one gives a definition of white privilege that's more or less what our lead says and calls it a "hypothesis," which, of course, it is, although hypothesis != theory.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The U of Dayton link talks about the definition of white privilege being part of a new "philosophical theory of oppression". The Socialist Worker magazine piece continuously describes it as a "theory". I will find and bring some of the other links when I return to this page tomorrow. 03:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The U of Dayton piece says it's part of a theory. I don't deny that it's part of a theory. It's part of a theory. A wheel is part of a car, but a wheel is not a car. Get that? The Socialist Worker piece describes it as part of a theory called "privilege theory," which it is. Again, a part of a theory is not necessarily a theory itself. Is that so hard to understand?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

These are RS refs describing "white privilege" as a theory. The Socialist Worker article is specifically talking about white skin privilege and is a follow-on piece to this critical view of white privilege also in that magazine. So this descriptor "theory" is being used to describe "white privilege".Capitalismojo (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The closest that last one gets is a couple uses of the phrase '"white skin privilege" theory.' It's clear from the context that the theory is "privilege theory" and that "white skin privilege" is a hypothetical entity of that theory rather than a theory in itself. Is the distinction unclear to you?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think a problem with the current lede is that it makes analysis that is based on American life and society appear universal. For instance it says "The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal". This will not be true in for instance Mexico, where according to our Wikipedia article "national identity [is built] on the concept of mestizaje". Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's certainly true, and a discussion of it probably deserves its own section. Perhaps you'd like to start one? I don't think anyone here will defend the quality of this article, which is seriously messed up, and the US-centricity is only one of the problems.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We have reliable source ref that states that this is academic theory. It is extremely controversial partisan position to assert that "white privilege" is a fact. That fails Verification. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I also note that multiple editors have removed alf's edit per policy. It is being edit warred back in though it is clearly not consensus. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, multiple editors have removed your edit too. So what? You keep contrasting "theory" with "fact." "Theory" and "fact" are not antonyms. I'm not asserting that white privilege is a "fact." It's not the kind of thing that can be a fact, since it's a noun. Only sentences are eligible for fact-hood. I can't make your arguments for you, you know.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Alf, I think the way you're conducting the discussion on this talk page is very dishonest. You want to state something in the lede, but then you claim that you haven't stated it at all. Continuing to argue about what the meaning of "is" is, or that nouns cannot be eligible for facthood, is just skirting around the point. Everyone who reads the introductory sentence realizes that a claim is being made. Can we just accept that a claim is being made, and then discuss whether that claim is appropriate in the lede, or are you going to continue diverting us into the deeper nature of nouns and adverbs? -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Alf is correct per the English language and the sources. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll also point to WP:WEASEL, WP:REFERS, and WP:LEAD. The wording is fine. White privilege is a theory and theoretical framework. That is easily verifiable. Frankly the lead sentence should not have "refers to" in it at all. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think I'm being dishonest. For about a year now you've been insisting (a) that there's no such thing as white privilege and (b) that I think there is such a thing as white privilege and am editing under the influence of political belief. As to the first, you're welcome to your opinion. As to the second, I have no opinion on the matter of whether white privilege exists. If you had evidence for your position I suppose you'd present it instead of dodging the real issue, which is what the sentence actually means in English.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's a good example, I think: Extraterrestrial life (Extraterrestrial life ... is defined as life that does not originate from Earth.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll also point to WP:WEASEL, WP:REFERS, WP:ALLEGED, and WP:LEAD. White privilege is a theory and theoretical framework. That is easily verifiable. Frankly the lead sentence should not have "refers to" in it at all. Adding comment about proposed wording below. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you (Alf) are leading the discussion under false pretenses. I have been very clear that the objectionable and unencyclopedic element of the lede is that it makes a very strong statement in favor of the theory it is describing. You have consistently claimed not to understand this objection, and then gone into a discussion of whether or not the noun "White privilege" exists, as in, whether a theory about white privilege does or does not exist. That "white privilege" is a concept used in certain social sciences has never been in doubt. The question is whether we should state factually in the article that there is a "set of societal privileges that white people benefit beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.)." It's really impossible to have any real discussion about this issue when one party dances around it in this way, refusing to acknowledge that they understand the objection.

If we were to translate the Extraterrestrial life example into the style of this article's lede, it would read: "Extraterrestrial life ... is the life that does not originate from Earth." Is this a correct factual statement, or is that a meaningless question in the English language? The noun "extraterrestrial life" exists, but answering the question of whether the preceding statement is factual in that manner completely (willfully, I would say) misses the point. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

False pretenses of what? I understand your objection just fine. I disagree with you. Isn't it possible that I could disagree with you under true pretenses? Now, you agree that white privilege is "a concept used in certain social sciences." OK, so do I. We have a starting point. Next, you ask "whether we should state factually in the article that there is a "set of societal privileges that white people benefit beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.).?" I agree that we should not. Fine, so far, right? Now we have to come up with a lead sentence that captures the sense of what we both agree on. My claim is that it already does that. Just as "Extraterrestrial life is defined as life that does not originate from Earth" and "A Martian is a native inhabitant of the planet Mars," "White privilege refers to the set of societal privileges that white people benefit from..." In none of these three clauses is there a claim of existence. Also, I've never discussed the issue of whether the noun "white privilege" exists. We're talking about whether it refers to anything in the world. Like, e.g. "unicorn" does not refer, "martian" and "white privilege" might refer, and "Wikipedia" almost certainly does refer. I don't want this article to take a position on whether "white privilege" refers. I assume that you don't either.

Next you say that it's not possible to say if your enhanced statement about extraterrestrial life is factual. We agree here too. It's not possible for a definition to be factual or not factual, since definitions are essentially speech acts rather than propositional statements. You agree that it's not proper to consider the question of whether the definition of extraterrestrial life is factual, but fail to see that it's also not possible to consider the question for white privilege. Defining a noun does not include taking a position on whether the noun refers to anything. Is this really so hard to see? We agree on every substantial issue. As far as I can see, our only point of disagreement is how to express the content in words. You want to put a qualifier in. I think that putting a qualifier in makes the sentence say that white privilege doesn't exist, whereas no qualifier keeps it neutral as to the question of existence.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed wording for opening sentence

I propose the following changes:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to is the theoretical 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.).

Emphasis and strikeout added to highlight changes. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate this attempt, and I'm in accord with your intent, but I don't think it's good to use the technical term "theoretical" there, since one of its major non-technical meanings actually denotes nonexistence according to the OED: 2b. That is such according to theory; existing only in theory, ideal, hypothetical (it's the "only" there that worries me). I don't think we should be taking a position on whether white privilege exists or not. Plus, as long as we're rewriting it, can I advocate for the use of "social" in place of "societal"? I just don't get what the advantage of "societal" is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hm... was going for "scientific theory" kind of "theoretical", but I see your point. Any suggestions for alternative words? My only concern with "social" instead of "societal" is that later in sentence we use "social, political or economic spaces". Frankly we could just remove "societal" altogether and the sentence would be clear. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I knew that's what you meant by "theoretical" there, but I'm just worried that that's too technical a sense. It's a hard problem to solve, I agree.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote for it? Or "sociological theory"? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think EvergreenFir's proposed wording for the opening sentence is acceptable. I think "theoretical" is fine, as to my reading, it doesn't make a statement on the existence or non-existence of white privilege (this is one of the problems with the lede as it currently stands). "Sociological theory" is also an accurate phrase, but including it in the opening sentence would require a more general rewording, along the lines of what I proposed earlier on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "sociological theory" would require a more general rewording. It's also inaccurate, as "white privilege" is not a sociological theory, but a hypothetical component of a sociological theory. I also think a footnote should be a very last resort, as I think it's possible to write a good first sentence that's self-explanatory. Did no one take me seriously about looking at Extraterrestrial life? I think that's a good model to use, since it's so clear that asserting either existence or nonexistence would violate NPOV.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think a closer example to use is another social science concept: Id, ego and super-ego. The lede there reads as follows:

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 above lede first places the terms in their context, and then defines them. That's another possible model to follow. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember you bringing that up before. It has the right flavor, but the difference is that Id, ego, super-ego are so specific to Freud's theory and its progeny, whereas white privilege is a concept used across such a wide variety of social sciences that we'd be hard pressed to say which theory it belongs to, and then we run into the problem we're already having. I wonder if we could make something out of the lead for personality which, believe it or not, is also a theoretical construct whose existence is contested. I don't like the phrasing "has to do with" there, but they do say what it is, even though the word might not actually refer to anything, and then say that different theorists define it differently. Just a thought. I really do think white privilege is more like martians than otherwise, though: "A Martian is a native inhabitant of the planet Mars."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Attempt #2: hope I'm not jumping the gun, but since y'all seemed to like "sociological theory", how about this:

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

Not too major of a rewording, addresses the concerns about the addition/lack of "theory", adds more info, and removes the pesky "refers to" and "societal". EvergreenFir (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that white privilege isn't a theory, it's an element of a theory.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether it is a theory or part of a theory depends on how broadly you define the theory you are talking about. It can certainly stand on its own as a theory, although it is also an element of other theories. In any event, I don't see any problem with EvergreenFir's 2nd wording. In fact, I think it's better than EvergreenFir's first proposal, and I would support it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I support this formulation as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I do support it in principle, but really, "white privilege" is not a "sociological theory" or, if it is, I'd like to see a source saying so. It's too low-level. Network theory is a sociological theory, critical race theory is a sociological theory, post-colonial theory is a sociological theory. White privilege is not a theory, it's an element of theories, many of them. You might as well start the article on doorknob by saying that a doorknob is a kind of house.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

My Proposal

I propose we add the word 'supposedly' in the first sentence so that it reads: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the set of societal privileges that white people ""supposedly"" benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.)"

I think this strikes a balance that allows the reader to know that the concept is not an empiricaly reality and is instead a theory (or sub theory^^) ACanadianToker (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

My concern is WP:ALLEGED. But also what do you mean by "not an empiricaly reality"? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That was a typo. I meant to say that this topic can not be measured empirically. The opening sentence reads in part that it "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"

It is not possible to actually demonstrate or identify the (specific) set of societal priviliges that white people experience.

Adding the word supposedly reflects the nature of the concept white privilege - there is no specific, measureable, set of societal priviliges that white people receive. With regards to the concerns about editorializing ( WP:ALLEGED ) I actually feel that the current lead is edditorializing when it refers to "the set of societal privileges that white people benefit from..." There is only alleged societal priviliges.

I don't see how this change is controversial considering that sentences following this use words such as presumed and implied ( Is that not editorializing WP:ALLEGED ?)

I hold that the opening sentence should read:

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the set of societal privileges that white people supposedly benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.)- ACanadianToker (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I would propose a full rewrite rather than adding the word supposedly to the lede. There is a way to show that it is a theory whilst meeting WP:ALLEGED. I'd also recommend you stop edit warring your solution in per WP:BRD and read the rest of the discussion. I appreciate that you think you are making the lede more impartial but you are actually bringing that cause backwards by not contributing to the discussion that was reaching leeway above --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal for a full rewrite? I think adding the word supposedly is a minimal change but I wouldnt be against a full rewrite. Clearly the neutrality of the lede is in question. With regards to the Revert part of the BRD it would be helpful for me to understand why it was reverted. -ACanadianToker (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I quite like the proposal by EvergreenFir but I also agree with the criticism by alf laylah wa laylah of it. I guess the general idea is to show that it is an element of theoretical work that concerns various social inequalities regarding to race. There are some good definitions here [1] but I'm not sure that you'll like them --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue with the definitions in that link is that there is no set of prilileges that can be articulated. They are normative defintionsACanadianToker (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the set of the belief that white people may receive benefits or privileges societal privileges that white people benefit from beyond those commonly experienced what may be experienced by people of color non-white people even after controlling for differences in social, political or economic spaces in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.) ACanadianToker (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

But white privilege isn't a belief, is it? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a belief. It is largely accepted academically and to call it a belief would undermine a huge amount of research and work into the topic. In the larger context of the lede, that is, if we don't focus solely on the first sentence, the way it is used in theoretical work is revealed. The more I think about it, I don't actually see any problems with it at all. If the first sentence alone was cut out and put into a dictionary I would suggest it to be rewritten but in the larger context of the lede it is pretty much correct --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps belief is not a good word. I have issue with the "refers to the set of societal privileges" that the lede refers to. There are no actual societal priviliges.

"...refers to the set of perceived 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.)"

If another editor agrees, please change it. If not I would like to hear others' input. ACanadianToker (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced you are editing the article from WP:NPOV when you assert things like "there are no actual societal priviliges". This is an encyclopedia article on White privilege that is based on reliable sources not the opinions of editors. That is also a gross simplification of what is a hugely complicated topic. I don't think somebody who blindly claims that there is no white privilege whilst simultaneously trying to edit an encyclopedia article concerning the topic has to competence to be editing on this. I'm going to lead you back to WP:ALLEGED again because I don't think adding the word perceived to the lede really helps the article. Do you have any sources in criticism of the concept? Like a researched book of critical theory on the concept? Or is this WP:ORIGINAL? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There's evidence of real societal privileges. This appears to be POV pushing EvergreenFir (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

If you all feel there is actual "evidence of real societal priviliges" then this article should do a better job to identify them. My issue with the lede is that the wording infers that there are specific and consistent societal prviliges.ACanadianToker (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don’t need to justify my competence to you. I am equally as qualified to edit this and any other article as anyone else. I will forgive you for that ad hominen attack on my character.

My issue with the lede is that white privilege is an esoteric concept. I don’t think the article does an adequate job at conclusive demonstrating SPECIFIC privileges. I am not denying their could potentially be an ontological privilege (ie. Privileges out there in the real world) but the lede reflects an epistemological assertion (ie. That there are specific, consistent, identifiable privileges) that the article does not back up. ACanadianToker (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is an academic concept developed from Critical race theory that refers to the set of societal privileges that white people benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in controlling for the same social, political, or economic situations of other peoples spaces (nation, community, workplace, incomeeducation, etc.)."

ACanadianToker (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I still don't think this is as succinct as the current lede --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

We're not only trying to write a succinct lede. We're also trying to write a lede which is accurate, and which avoids editorializing. The problem with the lede as it stands is that it editorializes. It takes a theoretical construct used in a particular area of academia, and talks about it as if it were absolutely valid. A much better approach would be either the lede I proposed earlier, which gives the context of white privilege (i.e., the disciplines from which the construct originates and in which it finds most of its use), or to use the lede that EvergreenFir proposed, which seemed largely acceptable to most users. Given the amount of tension over the current lede, and the relative lack of disagreement over EvergreenFir's lede, I strongly favor switching to EvergreenFir's version. It reads as follows:

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

The objection that white privilege is not a theory is a pretty minor semantic question, and one that I don't actually think is correct. White privilege is indeed a theoretical concept, a central part of an interpretive framework and a set of claims about the way society works. Calling it a theory is not a stretch at all. I think we should make EvergreenFir's proposal the basis for further discussion, and if there is a desire to change the word theory to something others feel is more appropriate, we can try to find another word. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I said I supported the one by EvergreenFir earlier in the thread. You're right though, that conversation seemed to be heading somewhere and then it just sort of got left. I think we should start a new section based on the proposal by Evergreenfir and then work on developing that --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Return to proposal by EvergreenFir

Okay so the lede reads as follows

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

We could possibly change it to "aspect of sociological theory" but that disrupts how the lede reads. What do you think? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"White privelege" is not a theory or a belief, and to say it is would be to butcher the English language. How do reliable sources, not other Wikipedia editors, define white privelege? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I was actually gonna look in some intro textbooks tomorrow I have lying around. But I'll look on Google books first. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The proposed lede gives the same description, almost to the word, of what white privilege means as the current lede. If it misrepresents the sources, then so does the current lede. Secondly, yes, it is an interpretive construct, used primarily in Critical Race Theory (and to some extent now imported into educational research). It's not butchering the English language to say that an interrelated set of concepts and claims about the way society works, used in certain sociological fields, is a sociological theory. I think EvergreenFir's proposed formulation is a pretty accurate way of stating what white privilege means and where it's used. However, if you vehemently disagree with the term "theory," because you think white privilege is a part of a larger theory, then please propose an alternative. I think the above proposal should be the basis for moving forward, though. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I've dug up so far.

Peggy McIntosh (2010) sees this freedom from daily consideration of such issues as "white privilege." She defines "white privilege" as obliviousness to the sorts of challenges that minorities experience on a regular basis.

— George Ritzer, Introduction to Sociology 2014 p. 301

White privilege: the ability for Whites to maintain an elevated status in society that masks racial inequality

— Margaret Andersen, Howard Taylor, and Kim Logio, Sociology: The Essentials, 2014, p. 424

White privilege is the other side of racism.

— Paula S. Rothenberg, White Privilege: Essential Readings on the Other Side of Racism, 2004, p. 1

Like whiteness, white privilege has often been invisible to those who benefit from it most.

— Paula S. Rothenberg, White Privilege: Essential Readings on the Other Side of Racism, 2004, p. 3

It's still the case that those parts of our lives in which we feel we stick out, by which we feel marginal, are the most visible to us. We are more aware of where we don't fit in to the dominant groups than where we do. Yet both - our membership in dominant if invisible groups and our membership in visible yet marginalized groups - define us, prividing the raw materials from which we fashion an identity. Subordinate and superordinate - these are the statuses that enable us to define who we are. .. Ultimarely we believe that examining those arenas in which we are privileged as well as those arenas in which we are not privileged will enable us to understand our society more fully and engage us in the long historical process of change.

— Michael Kimmel and Abby Ferber

Like Rothenberg, Kimmel and Ferber also say that privilege is a reframing of inequality with the intent of making invisible benefits of a racist/sexist/etc. system visible.

In a white-supremacist society, white people will have privilege. ... White privilege, like any social phenomenon, is complex. In a white-supremacist society, however, all white people have some sort of privilege in some settings. There are general patterns, but such privilege plays out differently depending on context and other aspects of one's identity.

— Robert Jensen, The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege, 2005, first chapter

Important to the previous quote:

By "white supremacist," I mean a society whose founding is based in an ideology of the inherent superiority of white Europeans over non-whites, an ideology that was used to justify the crimes against indigenous people and Africans that created the nation. That ideology also has justified legal and extralegal exploitation of every non-white immigrant group, and is used to this day to rationalize the racialized disparities in the distribution of wealth and well-being in this society. It is a society in which white people occupy most of the top positions in powerful institutions, with similar privileges available in limited ways to non-white people who fit themselves into white society.

— Robert Jensen, The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege, 2005, p. 4

I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was "meant" to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps, guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks.

— Peggy McIntosh, Ch. 47 in Critical White Studies: Looking Behind the Mirror, edited by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, origin manuscript printed in 1988

She has her list of privileges again here.

Interestingly, many intro textbooks do not have a definition of it. Most only talk about privilege vis-a-vis power, typically in the politics chapter. I don't have any access to race/ethnicity textbooks, but I've asked a few people for help on that.

In sum, there's a general theme of (1) the invisibility of the privileges which are unearned benefits (or lack of impediments as illustrated by McIntosh's numbered list). A few make it clear that this is an inversion of racism. Jensen specifies that it's the result of a white-supremacist society in which Whites historically and presently hold power based in supremacist ideology. None say it's a theory (just as "racism" isn't a theory I suppose). Based on this, I would change the lead sentence to:

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the unearned, often invisible, benefits automatically gained by white people in White supremacy-based societies. This set of privileges extends beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.). By shifting the focus to the dominant group, white privilege is an inversion of standard understandings of racism and racial discrimination."

That would help globalize the definition as well. However, the "note" at the end of the first sentence does provide an extensive list of definition and overall the current lead does cover most of this. Honestly this note does answer Malik Shabazz's request for RS.

One take-away I have is that the word "theory" seems to have no place in reference to white privilege. It's no in the sources and thus does not belong in the intro sentence. I guess I should rescind my original proposal of adding "is the sociological theory". EvergreenFir (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the unearned unwarranted, often invisible, social benefits automatically gained by white people in White supremacy-based societies. This set of These privileges extends beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.). By shifting the focus to the dominant group, white privilege is an inversion of standard understandings of racism and racial discrimination."

I think this is an improvement. I still have a few issues with it though. First, instead of unearned I suggest unwarranted. The priviliges are unwarranted because they are based on race instead of merit. Also I don't think automatically is wise considering the Rights vs. Privileges section that points out that not all whites could have these same privileges. The 'set' of privileges should be stricken too - it is hard to say that white privilege are these privileges - ie. this set of social goods.

I'm not sure we really need the last sentence, I think it makes it more wordy than is necessary, but I see what you're trying to say. Maybe it could read "White privilege allows for a different level of analysis of issues of racism and discrimination whereby the positive outcomes of racism for a dominant majority can be contrasted with traditional, victim oriented, understandings of racism and racial discrimination."

ACanadianToker (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I know its been discussed elsewhere on the page, but I thought the EvergreenFir's suggestion of ""White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the sociological theory that white people benefit from a set of privileges beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.)."" was a good one. ACanadianToker (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the new proposal being hashed out exemplifies exactly what is wrong with this article. Discussions of white privilege taken pretty much exclusively from textbooks in Whiteness Studies are taken to mean that it's not a sociological concept. It is a sociological concept, and one that, as is already discussed in the Wiki article, is criticized pretty fundamentally by prominent scholars. If you confine yourself to people who publish in the Critical Race Theory or Whiteness Studies subfields, which is where almost all of the scholarly use of the term "white privilege" occurs, you will find that people pretty widely accept the concept. That's not really surprising - those subfields are pretty much defined by belief in white privilege. If you go look at the relatively few scholars in mainstream historical publications who have dealt with Whiteness Theory (see, for example Eric Arnesen's "Whiteness and the Historian's Imagination" and the exchange of articles that followed), you find responses ranging from scathing critique to cautious acceptance. Of course, once you deal with reactions outside academia, the picture is altogether different. It's important not to mistake the acceptance of white privilege as an accurate concept in a small area of sociological research for broad or universal academic acceptance of the idea. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

We are concerned with what the reliable sources say. Just about everything in sociology that challenges the dominant group enjoys volumes of "criticism" from people outside of sociology. But as a social science concept, we must focus on what social science says about it. That is not the problem with the article. We have a criticism section to address the critiques of the concept and general non-academic responses to it. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"It's important not to mistake the acceptance of white privilege as an accurate concept in a small area of sociological research for broad or universal academic acceptance of the idea." Nor, might I add, non academic acceptance of the idea. I've modifed a previous suggestion from EvergreenFir below. Perhaps it can help us to resolve the issue.

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the sociological theory that an academic concept developed from Critical Race Theory holding that white people benefit from a set of social privileges beyond those commonly experienced by non-white peoples people of color in the same social, political, or economic circumstances spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.)."ACanadianToker (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I have since changed the first sentence to reflect that^^^^ I would welcome others' comments. ACanadianToker (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit looks fine. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's get consensus before changing the lede sentence. Critical race theory is already mentioned in the lede section. I concur with Malik Shabazz that "white privelege" is neither a theory nor a belief. Characterizing white privilege as a myth, theory, or academic concept only waters down the definition. gobonobo ^{+ c} 15:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

RS supports ACanadian's formulation. Whether it "water's down" a definition or not we should follow the refs. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Having reliable sources does not give you permission to ignore consensus. References support the formulation that has been previously agreed to. Until a new consensus has formed, edit warring to revert to your preferred version is tendentious. gobonobo ^{+ c} 18:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring? Really? I made one edit, a revert. My last edit before that was April. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Gobonobo, and others, perhaps you could more clearly describe your issues with my change?

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is an academic concept developed from Critical Race Theory holding that white people benefit from social privileges beyond those commonly experienced by non-white peoples in the same social, political, or economic circumstances"

As to consensus I thought we had reached it with the above^^ I would appreciate further input, reverting to the original can not persist as - clearly- the original has issues of its own. ACanadianToker (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: also, why was my change reverted? Why not discuss/improve my suggestion instead of going back to the original? ACanadianToker (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that we had a decent working consensus with your and Evergreens proposed lede, especially give that there was extremely limited argument against it. By limited I mean there was no policy based argument, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've said almost all of this before, but since it's archived:

Critical race theory and whiteness studies, and even "sociology," are far from an exhaustive list of the domains in which white privilege is now a key term. A 2012 Essentials of Sociology textbook lists the term (Google Books link). It's used as a term in education policy research (as in here) We find reference here to interest in studying privilege in "psychology, sociology, women's studies, ethnic studies, social work, education, family therapy, and law." It would be fairly easy to document and cite the use and development of the concept across these domains. Now if this longer list were inserted in the lede, it would be unwieldy, but it probably also wouldn't make the concept seem appear marginal.

Separately, in terms of the Wikipedia standards to be applied, I think this is pretty conclusive:

• "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." (from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable_science)

We have a concept here with scores of reliable academic sources to back it up. Moreover, the idea that nonwhites face discrimination to some degree is a popular, majority view (see here, for example). So, to state that "white privilege" refers to a set of advantages for white people does not violate NPOV. Any criticism (or "contextualization" that is a mask for criticism) should come after the opening sentence.--Carwil (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Carwil on this. The lead is fine the way it is. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing a problem with the current lede. It is well supported by the sources provided. What's not to like. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My major issue, as it remains, is that the first sentence implies that there is a specific set of societal privileges when in fact there are no specifically identifiable privileges. It seems as if the major issue with my change was the critical race theory bit so I'll try this:

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a concept holding that white people benefit from social privileges beyond those commonly experienced by non-white peoples in the same social, political, or economic circumstances."ACanadianToker (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

But McIntosh, who coined the term, gave a specific list of examples of White Privilege. How can you claim there are no identifiable privileges? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? I see no mention of McIntosh's enumerated list of specific examples in the article or talk page. Please point me in that direction. Is it the White Privilege and Male Privilege article you are reffering too? ( http://www.odec.umd.edu/CD/GENDER/MCKIN.PDF ) If that is the case, and the SET of social privileges the first sentence is referring to ( THE set of societal privileges are McIntosh's 46 assets, than I think we should more clearly demonstrate the relationship between the inference that there is an identifiable SET of privileges and McIntosh's work. The notes section, which merely claims that McIntosh referes to white privilege as an invisible, weightless knapsack of assets and resources does not do McIntosh's contribution justice then. Also I think whether or not she coined the term is in question given the contradictory information under the history of the concept section. Popularized, maybe. A Canadian Toker 04:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

ACanadianToker, you seem to be convinced that white privilege is a concept, a theory, or a belief. It is not. It is privilege, that is, special benefits that white people enjoy by virtue of being white. You may believe that the existence of white privilege is a fairy tale, but writing that white privilege is a concept is just wrong.

I would advise you to re-read WP:BRD, especially the part that says, Bold editing is not, however, a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing without consensus. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, clearly I am failing to make my issues with the lead sentence clear. I will forgive you for accusing me of engaging in Tedentious editing for that reason.

I am not denying that there are privileges for white people, I'm not claiming it to be a fairy tale nor am I denying its empircal existence. My issue is that the wording of the first sentence leads to the inference that there is a SPECIFIC set (i.e. the set) of privileges. This article makes no mention or attempt at identifying these privileges. If, as EvergreenFir suggested, the set of privileges was identified and enumerated by McIntosh than this article and the lead sentnece should do a better job at incorporating her work. For the sake of readability and continued discussion I will create a new section with a new proposal. A Canadian Toker 18:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Malik, I don't think there are many people who dispute the existence of discrimination against minorities. The dubious step that keeps on occurring in this talk page is to infer from the existence of discrimination the existence of privilege. Those are not equivalent concepts. Discrimination is something which is easily verified, but the idea of a generalized racial privilege is something that is not obvious, especially in the absence of legal privileges and in a society in which at least outwardly (and legally) professes equality. Discrimination is something factual, and privilege is an interpretive framework used in some areas of academia (like CRT and whiteness studies), but which is controversial in others (like mainstream American historical research). The objection to the lede is pretty simple: it makes a very strident claim in favor of the idea that whites are privileged, whereas it should simply describe what the term "white privilege" means. I think it makes such a strident claim because of the personal views of the majority of editors involved here, and I think those editors should step back and ask themselves whether they're blurring the line between their convictions and what they can reasonably state in an encyclopedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: you seen to misunderstand the entire topic. See my summary of definitions above. It's a "reframing" of the issue. It's the flip of discrimination. Moreover, the lead does explain what white privilege is. There are numerous policies mentioned explaining why it should not be changed. You cite no WP policies or guidelines, misunderstand the topic at hand, and assume ill of fellow editors. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware that people who advance the idea of white privilege often call it "the flip-side of discrimination." If you're embedded deeply enough in one way of thinking, it can be difficult to think outside of that framework, and that is what I think is happening in this discussion. If you think that calling "the flip-side of discrimination" "privilege" is not recasting the issue of discrimination, it is a sign that you already implicitly accept the entire interpretive framework built up by Critical Race Theory. In fact, as we discuss in the article already, this is one of the primary critiques of the idea of white privilege - it treats lack of discrimination, or non-withholding of what are supposed to be universal rights, as a privilege. There are scholarly critiques of the concept of white privilege cited in the article along exactly the same lines. I'm not saying that the article should declare this particular interpretive framework wrong, but on the other side, the article should not be phrased as if it were implicitly true. I'm worried when I see editors here declaring that they believe in white privilege, and then that the lede's phrasing doesn't bother them at all. I think it is reasonable to conclude that polemical issues are getting in the way of writing a neutral lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It mirrors other concept pages and follows WP guidelines. That's all that matters. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal from ACanadianToker

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

I would welcome input and discussion. A Canadian Toker 18:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

"People of color" is an US-only term, I agree non-white could bebetter. See my global perspective section below. Otherwise your slight modifications seem good as well. --Pudeo' 00:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not a US-only term. It's an academic one. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

As per that point^ I would posit that it might be an US, english, academic term. We don't use people of color in Canada. A Canadian Toker 14:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs) EDIT: Also, the people of color page clearly states its primarily a US term... People of Color A Canadian Toker (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the inappropriate use of "refers to" per WP:REFER. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Malik Shabzz, your concerns are noted. I have recitifed that part. I don't think that retaining 'the set' is appropriate.

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to is a concept that alludes to societal privileges that white people benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by non-white people in the same social, political, or economic circumstances." A Canadian Toker 00:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

I see no consensus for your version. Also, again, I object to "non-white people". People of color is the appropriate term. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's primarily a US concept. See section below about title. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I see a lack of consensus about issues with my version. Is the only issue the 'non-white people'? A Canadian Toker (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As for it being a US concept, I thought that using non-white people would be inclusive of the other sections in the page (South Africa, Europe and Australia). A Canadian Toker (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Global perspective in the lead

One of the tags for this article is "The examples and perspective in this USA may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.". This is an agreeable criticism: as definition now stands it just describes it as (universal?) societal privileges. Does the white privilege exist in Iran or Japan? What is its role in Poland? Almost all sources, if not every one of them, are American. Perhaps this could be addressed by adding "in the United States" in the lead. --Pudeo' 00:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a very good point. A LexisNexis search will reveal that "white privilege" is a common term in South Africa, and that it is used to mean something radically different from what it means in the United States. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should rename the article if one for the South African term is created, or we add it here. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the title change. I think it's best to follow how the literature uses the term, and it also avoids the need of globalizing something that isn't necessarily global. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 01:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

'Said' as placeholder

There is consensus that the phrasing needs to be changed, and the use of the word 'said' casts a sufficient yet conservative amount of doubt which will suffice until this discussion can reach any kind of conclusion. Ancholm (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

a set of societal privileges said that white people benefit from doesn't make any sense. The word "said" is misplaced. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It is correct. In fact said would make grammatical (but not contextual) sense in front of "set of","privileges that", and "white people." Perhaps there is someone you know whose grasp of English you have faith in who you can whose opinion you can differ to in this matter. Ancholm (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Same as WP:ALLEGED. Can also by {{whom}}. Not appropriate for lead. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, but it needs to change and you guys can't figure out how you want to do that. The way it's written right now implies white privilege is a thing that exists right now everywhere white people interact with people of any other race. Every one who comes along is going to read it as such. Now either put alleged back in or figure out something better, because right now all I'm seeing is special interests campaigning. Ancholm (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: On the white guilt page the opening line is as follows: [white guilt is the...] often said [to be felt...] Who is a frequent (and most recent) editor of that page? User Malik Shabazz. Ancholm (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus that the lead needs to be changed. Regardless, the existence of white privilege is not in doubt. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Saying white privilege exists everywhere is tantamount to saying all white people are racist. Doubting racism against white people exists is like doubting the existence of global warming. Ancholm (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice strawmen. Any time you'd like to discuss the actual article, feel free. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ancholm: This is not the place to discuss your apparent lack of understanding of white privilege or structural racism (you conflate discrimination with racism). Discuss the article or stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of the article is irrelevant because you will quote barely relevant wording rules or whatever else to remove anything that contradicts your own racial sentiments. The glaring problem in that opening paragraph has been noticed by several people, and several times you have shot edits down despite them being improvements on the present form. Ancholm (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I think using Said in the intro sentence would help to resolve some of the issues I have had with the intro. I agree that it could have been placed better so I propose the following:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for a set of societal privileges, existing said to exist in predominantly white societies, that benefit white people beyond what is commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

A Canadian Toker (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead As of July 8, 2014

I have reverted the opening sentence to sort of how it stood on July 8, 2014. One of the things I did was readd the a term for and deleted the set of in the beginning. Needless to say I disagreed with removing those words because I feel they strike a balance. My issue with the lead as it was, as mentioned on this talk page above, is that it creates the inference that there is a specific (i.e. identifiable and consistent) set of privileges that white people benefit from. I also added the said to exist that I suggested in the section above. I would appreciate others' feedback. The sentence below is how it stands now

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for set of societal privileges, existing said to exist in predominantly white societies, which benefit white people beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people in the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

A Canadian Toker (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop trying to weasel in words to change the lead to fit what you want. It's edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Accusing me of edit warring does nothing but shut down discussion. That makes it hard to BRD. The only thing I want is to improve the lead sentence, and ensure a NPOV. Furthermore, I feel your accusations are unfounded given the similarities of my bold, above, and what you edited the article to. (/index.php?title=White_privilege&oldid=616744939 ) I think you would benefit from reading the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles

Also, I would like to please invite others' input on what I've suggested. I would be happy to discuss the POV issues with the lead and suggestions for improvement further with all of you.

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for a set of societal privileges, existing said to exist in predominantly white societies, that benefit white people beyond what is commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic circumstances."

A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This poor horse. We've even had an admin, Coffee, come in and address the issue specifically. The current form is their edit. You are still trying to put in WP:ALLEGED. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, it occured to me that your issue with my suggestion may be the 'said to exist part.' Considering our agreement vis a vis the addition of 'term for' perhaps the following would be a good compromise:

"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for a set of societal privileges, existing in predominantly white societies, that benefit white people beyond what is commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic circumstances."

A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The current lead sentence is fine with me. Removing "a set of" addresses your concerns that there is no exact set of privileges. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I would invite other's input on the matter. If it is an issue I would recommend a nother Bold. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Scope

This article needs more focus on it's topic. It bleeds strongly into areas of racial discrimination and inequality which are more umbrella issues.Mattnad (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The dynamics of white privilege amongst the separate European ethnic groups

Can it be pointed out that different European ethnic groups function differently in relation to one another in the white privilege? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.235.243 (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It depends upon which ethnicities you have in mind. RS conflict as to which is a broader concept, race or ethnicity, much less which encompasses which. Yet most agree that both concepts are socio-political constructs, which by definition are fluid & defy categorical, rather than continuous, qualification. Where RS don't support race as a variable within inter-ethnic conflicts, "white privilege" is inappropriate and the more general concept of "bigotry" applicable. What specific conflicts do you have in mind? AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Written as fact?

Shouldn't this article say "alleged" privileges in the first sentence? What ever you believe on this phenomenon, it is still a theory--not a hard science 'fact.' It is highly POV to write white privilege as a reality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.15.206 (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Because "alleged" is a weasel word that insinuates unreliability, when per Reliable Source consensus, WP is indeed both a theory AND a reality. If you have any RS that dispute this, cite them for inclusion. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ALLEGED. Also thinking "hard science" is fact shows that you don't know how hard science is done. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

So essentially you are saying there is no debate on this sociological concept? What BS is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.43.25.111 (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

First, "theory" and "fact" aren't mutually exclusive. Second, the article clearly outlines the larger theoretical framework surrounding WP. Third, Wiki only reports what notable RS do. Since reliable sources unanimously affirm the validity of WP, so does Wiki. While editors would welcome any comparably reliable sources disputing this, so far no one's marshaled any. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Privilege versus rights

The distinctions Blum draws between 'unjust enrichment', 'spared injustice', and especially 'non-injustice related privilege' (last version of these on 7 Nov. 2014 in revision by User:D reyes23) need to be restored to this article and made clear, particularly for the sake of clearing up the relationship between white privilege and rights. The last concept is important because it is ridiculous to suppose that every sort of privilege (e.g. being able to find a roughly matching skin toned band aid) is a matter of justice or injustice and much of the resistance among whites to the idea of 'white privilege' is probably a response to this fact. This resistance might be mitigated if it could be make clearer when and why a certain kind of white privilege is unjustly enriching (something to which no one has a right) or sparing whites an injustice (something to which everyone should have a right). Obviously these concepts have to be explained to the public in order to do that. Matt Ferkany (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the American Mosaic Project

Hello, I'm not a Wiki-user so hopefully I'm doing this right. I was checking to see if any polls had been conducted on acceptance of the white privilege concept amongst the US population, and came across the link to the Mosaic Project in this article. The article uses this wording:

"Sociologists in the American Mosaic Project report widespread belief in the United States that "prejudice and discrimination [in favor of whites] create a form of white privilege." According to their 2003 poll this view was affirmed by 59% of white respondents, 83% of Blacks, and 84% of Hispanics."

To me, the use of quotations there heavily implies this was the wording that was used on the poll. However, per that reference: "63% of people asked believed that prejudice and discrimination in favor of whites is important in explaining white advantage. Said another way, two-thirds of respondents see a form of white privilege and believe prejudice and discrimination play an important role in benefiting whites."

While the wording of the question isn't actually provided anywhere, the use of "said another way" implies that the former sentence was almost certainly closer to the wording. This may seem like a minor point but I think it's a bit misleading; even if the recognition of prejudice/discrimination plays into the concept of white privilege, it seems more than reasonable to assume the usage of the phrase might've changed the results, making the sentence descriptor a bit misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.255.222.190 (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the article

There are several problems with the article: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit white people in western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by the non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstance". Several issues here:

• white people don't live only in western countries. What about Eastern countries like Ukraine, Belarus or Poland? The sentence completely ignores that or ignorantly claims only western countries have white populations-difficult to tell. In any case needs some kind of adjustment.
• "societal privileges that benefit white people in western countries" Western countries like United Kingdom or Netherlands have large number of immigrants from Eastern Europe, who despite being white, do not enjoy any social privileges. In fact they can face more severe open racism than immigrants from other groups. There's actually a literature on this subject and this could be sourced, including literature that talks about "white privilege". We need to clarify this sentence as it is simply wrong.

"Nevertheless, some people who use the term "white privilege" describe it as a worldwide phenomenon, resulting from the history of colonialism by white Western Europeans. One author argues that American white men are privileged almost everywhere in the world, even though many countries have never been colonized by Western Europeans.[43][44]" There are many problems with this, white people are not only Western European, the sentence is unclear if the term applies to all white people, Western Europeans or just Americans.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You raise some very good points, and it suggests to me that not only does the article need amending for implicit bias, but also expansion for explicit criticism of the term. I guess since that 'white privilege' arises in the U.S. from comparison of 'white' communities (where white European – Eastern and Western – are fairly long-established and freely mixed communities) with 'non-white' communities (initially African-American, and then later extended to other 'non-white' communities). This would therefore not have to deal as strongly with the issues of Eastern vs. Western European identity that exists in many Western European countries (especially in the wake of increased free movement within Europe in recent years), so would neglect forms of discrimination against the 'white other', as many Eastern European identities are constructed as being. I tried a quick search to see what Google Scholar offered for the term "white privilege eastern europe", and a few potential sources jumped out at me:

• Bhopal, R and Donaldson, L (1998) "White, European, Western, Caucasian, or What? Inappropriate Labeling in Research on Race, Ethnicity, and Health", American Joumal of Public Health (full text available) – no direct mention of 'white privilege', but it certainly criticises use of 'White' in scientific contexts (especially medical demography). It appears to be a good article, but I'm not sure to what degree inclusion here would began to trespass on the grounds of original research, on account of its discussion not of white privilege, but the more general use of 'white' in scientific contexts;
• Garner, S. (2006) "The Uses of Whiteness: What Sociologists Working on Europe Can Draw from US Research on Whiteness", Sociology (full text available) – this does mention the problems of translating 'white privilege' from US to European social discourse, specifically pointing out that "[n]ominally white Europeans can also be racialised in the process of constructing national identities, as has been the case in Britain with nomadic, Jewish and Irish people, as well as Eastern Europeans" (p.2), which is exactly a key problem that you mention.
• Twine, F.W, Gallagher, C. (2008) "The future of whiteness: a map of the ‘third wave’", Ethnic and Racial Studies – I couldn't find the full text, but as an examination of "whiteness studies", it does mention in the abstract discussion of "analyses of white identity formation among members of racial and ethnic minorities"; whether the racial and ethnic minorities include 'white minorities' (e.g. Eastern Europeans in Western Europe) remains to be seen.

In short, there's definitely scope for expansion of the article to include criticism of the term itself as US-centric, or at the very least neglectful of non-privileged white groups. I'm not sure when I'd be able to add any material, and to what degree, but if anyone else is looking to take this on, then I'm more than happy to help. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive response and providing me with additional sources. This indeed can be expanded with some information about situation in Europe and specific ethnic groups. I have also found sources directly informing about the theory of white privilege and situation of Eastern European immigrants. I will work on this subject.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)