Talk:White privilege/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacademician.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

qualifications of experts or writers in sources

User:Curly Turkey removed the phrase "Pulitzer Prize winner" from the description of Vargas (the producer of White People), citing WP:PEACOCK. I don't think WP:PEACOCK applies in this case. WP:PEACOCK applies for things that are vague opinions or puffery adjectives and cannot be falsified. In this case, his Pulitzer Prize winner status is an objective fact, and is easy to verify, and is not a matter of opinion. I have restored the description. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Peacock is the correct label, but I don't think the Pulitzer mention is necessary here. Vargas (or should he be referred to as Antonio per Spanish naming customs?) won a Pulitzer for breaking news coverage, not for the documentary, and his larger body of work doesn't need to be specifically promoted. That info is available at his article with sources and context. Emphasizing the award here is similar to MOS:HONORIFICs or WP:CREDENTIALs. Those are factual, but they still don't belong outside of the subject's own article. Any awards won in connection to the documentary would be different, of course. Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked both project pages (including WP:CREDENTIALS) and AFAIK we're not calling him "Dr Vargas" or anything like that and we're not repeatedly using his Pulitzer Prize as a form of address. I only used it to introduce context and establish the authority of sources. I think that is part of WP:V? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, it's not exactly the same as credentials, but there is a parallel. It's providing some context, but it seems like maybe a distraction in this case. It's a potential cause for confusion over why he won the prize, since it was unrelated to the documentary and not clearly connected to this topic. I am also generally weary of awards being mentioned in passing, because it's so difficult to balance the promotional against the informational. By mentioning the journalist's prize, the article is subtly implying that the documentary is better than it otherwise would be, which is not Wikipedia's role. Grayfell (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What "context" does "prize-winning" give us? It serves to "promote the subject", which is both the spirit and letter of WP:PEACOCK. The prize has nothing to do with the context—it only fluffs some feathers, which is a wholly inappropriate thing to do in this article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and "award-winning" is one of the phrases explicitly cited as a no-no at WP:PEACOCK. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"Pulitzer Prize winning" is verifiable, as it refers to a specific set of prizes which he either did or did not win. His having won the prize is not information that needs to be imparted, but it is imparting verifiable information, so by my reading it's not exactly the letter of WP:PEACOCK. Spirit? Yes. It doesn't belong. That's the important part, right? Grayfell (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That is the important part, but it most certainly is in the letter of WP:PEACOCK—the "award-winning" language is right there in the list of words to watch. I would imagine we could source and verify any "award-winner" award. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I see what you are saying, but I don't agree. Hear me out: The example given at WP:PEACOCK is Bob Dylan being named to the Time 100. That's a specific accolade which is considered acceptable and appropriate. Merely saying he was a "defining figure of the 1960s" is not. Both of these examples are flattering. The problem is not just that they are both promotional, it's that one is promotional without being verifiable or informative as worded. While a source could be found for a specific award, if the award is specified, it's no longer a peacock. "Award winning" may sometimes be provable, but it's never disprovable. It could refer to any award imaginable. "Pulitzer Prize winning" is disprovable, as it refers to a specific and verifiable prize given by a known group. That's the difference. Grayfell (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to say Dylan was named to the Top 100 Whatever in the context of the "Reception & legacy" (or whatever) section of the Bob Dylan article. It would be totally inappropriate to say—in virtually any other context—"according Time-recognized Top 100 Important Person Bob Dylan ...". Wikipedia has no room for that peacockery, regardless of whether it can be sourced. The director's Pulitzer has its place—in the "Reception" section of the director's article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Curley Turkey's interpretation of WP:PEACOCK has consensus, and almost seems idiosyncratic. Reading the policy/guideline, it is clear to me that as part of "words to watch", it is about vague, unfalsifiable language. "Award-winning" could be attributed to anyone. "Pulitzer Prize winning" cannot. Also, I disagree, there are many contexts in which to discuss Bob Dylan's awards outside of his biography. I used Vargas' Pulitzer Prize to establish his authority as a source, i.e. so as to comply with WP:V (reliable sources). A Pulitzer Prize win would clearly establish the notability and authority of the director, even if it wasn't due to the documentary itself. For example, we often introduce the background of academic sources (so they are not random last names), even if their tenure or appointment doesn't relate to the current article at hand.

Also, I think we're misinterpreting WP:CREDENTIALS, which is mainly addressing repetitive forms of address. It is okay to mention for example, a certain academic source's credentials (or Nobel Prize wins, etc.), while discussing a topic they are authoritative on, just as long as we're not calling him or her "doctor" throughout the whole article. For example, Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his theory of electron bonding, not for his advocacy of Vitamin C megadosing. But it would seem very relevant to note Linus Pauling's Nobel Prize winner status at least once in the article on Vitamin C megadosing for readers who are uninformed about his role in the history of chemistry, but are trying to find out more about the practice. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC) note, I did just edit and reshuffle the sections in the megadosing article and used Linus Pauling in the lead, but even before I edited it, Linus Pauling's Nobel Prize had already been mentioned in the following context: In the 1960s, the Nobel-Prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling, after contact[14] with Irwin Stone, began actively promoting vitamin C as a means to greatly improve human health and resistance to disease.

I don't think Curley Turkey's interpretation of WP:PEACOCK has consensus—then you'll have to take it up at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, as the exact wording "award-winning" is explicitly on the list of "peacock" phrases to avoid. I've left a message there. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but "award winning" is very different from "Pulitzer Prize winner". I think it a rather disingenuous sleight of hand to associate the two. "Award winning" is bad because it is vague, unfalsifiable and doesn't name a specific award. I have no idea why you keep using this comparison.Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"Award winning" is unfalsifiable? That's absurd. I have no idea why you think this fluff is in any way appropriate. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Puffery is defined at wp:Peacock in terms of vagueness. The rule there states "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." Pulitzer Prize meets the criteria of facts that demonstrate importance. each category gets one winner a year for the entire USA. Rjensen (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, wonderful, so now we'll see award winners anointed with these pseudo-titles wherever they are mentioned throughout Wikipedia? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a new thing. We shouldn't be relying on the manual of style for this, anyway. This is fundamentally based on WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, which are core policies. This requires a more nuanced interpretation with more room for disagreement. Pauling's connection to the vitamin C thing is not the same as Vargas's connection to white privilege, so we have to go case-by-case. I see nothing surprising about this. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The argument isn't whether to mention Vargas or the film, but whether to fluff up the director by advertising an unrelated award. Are we going to use the formula "the Nobel Prize-winning American author Ernest Hemingway" every time Hemingway is mentioned? The arguments above would suggest that's just fine & dandy. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A Pulitzer Prize isn't fluff. Most laypeople reading Vitamin C may not know about Linus Pauling. Most people reading white privilege may not know about Vargas' background. Or for that matter, Kimberle Crenshaw's, which is why I also introduced her as appropriate in the article. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yanping Nora Soong: Did I say a Pulitzer Prize is fluff? Please respond to what I wrote, not your straw man. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I quote: The argument isn't whether to mention Vargas or the film, but whether to fluff up the director by advertising an unrelated award. But you're picking on just the first sentence of my response. I'm trying to build an encyclopedia. We've already established that the WP:MOS doesn't apply here, and that WP:SYNTH doesn't apply because Vargas' award is directly mentioned in the sources we're using (Zimmerman and Hsu's reviews, among others we might include). If the sources mention his Pulitzer Prize in their reviews, why is it wrong to also include it as well? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopaedia, not a fluffy magazine article. The Pulitzer has zero relevance to the context and can only serve to fluff up the director. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but our sources don't think so. Are you a reliable source, Curly Turkey? Do you have an academic article on white privilege or white people published? Because numerous reviews mention his Pulitzer Prize. See the section below. If the sources mention his Pulitzer Prize, including especially in the opening header to their articles, why should we omit it? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You're not even paying attention, are you? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Vargas' Pulitzer Prize mentions, straight from the horse's (or is it sources' ?) mouth

• The Daily Beast / Amy Zimmerman: In the controversial and eye-opening documentary White People, premiering July 22 on MTV, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jose Antonio Vargas explores whiteness in America. This is in the opening header to the article. The article then follows...."White People is the brainchild of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and activist Jose Antonio Vargas."
• HuffPost / Julia Craven: In Vargas' new documentary, "White People," which will air on MTV July 22, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist takes a simple approach: ask white people to think of themselves as such and acknowledge the historical implications that accompany their identity.
• MTV: Working on the new MTV documentary “White People” has sent Pulitzer Prize-winning filmmaker and journalist Jose Antonio Vargas all over the United States.

Just in case there was any doubt over whether this was like, you know, WP:SYNTH and all. Or fluffery. Or puffery. Or WP:PEACOCK. Cuz, idk, someone really thinks Vargas' Pulitzer Prize is irrelevant. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Holy Christ, but could the point go any farther over your head? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I am at a loss here. If the sources mention his Pulitzer Prize win, and we're using the sources in this article, why shouldn't we mention his Pulitzer Prize win? You haven't addressed this at all. You're saying this is fluffery. The sources (about the film!) that we're using do not.

Also, I will ask for further intervention from WP:ANI if you continue to stalk me and make personal attacks on me. Could I have some help from others here? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh my god, what a joke. Please, please, please take me to ANI for "stalking you". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

My first response to this, after seeing it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch, was to say that this is not a WP:PEACOCK problem; noting a Pulitzer Prize win is not making an "unprovable proclamation." After reading the discussion, I am a bit more sympathetic to the opposition view, which is that there may be a question of relevance. User:Curly Turkey has a valid point that we would not refer to Ernest Hemingway as "the Nobel Prize-winning American author Ernest Hemingway" every time his name is mentioned, though of course any such details would be noted in a person's own page. The reason for not using this formulation is not that it is against Wikipedia policy (I reject the idea that it's a substantial NPOV problem here); it's just not really necessary, especially if the Pulitzer Prize in question was for work unrelated to the topic under discussion.

One more caveat: perhaps it's unnecessary in the case of Ernest Hemingway, but I suppose there's an argument to be made that Vargas is not very well known, and so mentioning the prize gives a reader some sense of the seriousness and quality of his projects. Hmm...I'm not being very helpful here. TheBlueCanoe 02:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about where I am, too. Nobody is denying that he did win a Pulitzer, but how relevant it is to this article is a valid debate that can't be ended just by saying "peacock". There are situations where it makes sense to introduce someone by mention a specific award. I don't think this is one of them, but they certainly do exist. Grayfell (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we address the fact that reliable sources on the mention Vargas' Pulitzer Prize, all while talking about the film White People within the greater context of white privilege? This is not original research. Why are we debating relevance if it's widely commented on by different sources? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. The three source above are longer news stories which are (mostly) about the film. The Pulitzer mentions are providing useful context about Vargas, who is obviously central to those articles. This article is not a news story, and it's about a larger topic with only a couple of paragraphs discussing the film. For that reason I'm not convinced that a direct comparison is useful. I don't see it as being flatly unacceptable, but for reasons explained above, I think it might be misleading and a bit too promotional. Also, the last source is from MTV, who produced the film, and it's not surprising that they want to emphasize the Pulitzer Prize connection. That's an example of the kind of subtle promotion I'm wary of. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we address the fact that reliable sources on the mention Vargas' Pulitzer Prize: Can we address why you think that's even relevant? If the director were famous for being one-legged, I would expect such sources to call him the "famous one-legged director". I would consider that as totally irrelevant to an article on white privilege as Vargas's Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Reporting—which has nothing to do with white privilege or the film mentioned. Even if the film itself had won a Pulitzer, that would be irrelevant in the context of an article on white privelege. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on White privilege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604235301/http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/anna/2000/00000090/00000001/art00002;jsessionid=3rmbt81dt5utk.alice to http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/anna/2000/00000090/00000001/art00002;jsessionid=3rmbt81dt5utk.alice

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

SSCI2831

This articles neutrality needs to be improved, and therefore I thought that the following article White Privilege by Levine-Ransky could be beneficial to this article.

Houda.kanoun (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houda.kanoun (talk • contribs) 18:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've now changed the protection level of this article to make it semi-protected, as it appears to be have been under constant bombardment from IP editors making fairly crude attempts at vandalism, with essentially no positive contributions from IPs, making Pending Changes seem rather counter-productive. -- The Anome (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I am surprised to find it was not protected in the first place. Thank you - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is a mess.

This article is a mess. There is no other way to put it.

Shouldn't there be a more clearly deliniated "Criticisms" section.

There is nothing scholarly about the article's approach to explaining "White Privilege Theory".

Delete and start over. 2601:14F:8003:DAFC:28AC:8636:BDC4:9214 (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No. There's no obligation for the article to have a criticism section, and that's almost always a bad idea if it can be avoided. If "there is no other way to put it" than you're not really saying anything. Grayfell (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Discrimination

I removed "Some indigenous Australians report incidents of discrimination by shopkeepers and real estate agents. " from the Australia section, as it does not address privilege in the way the concept is elucidated in the article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC).

Objectivity Part#2

There seems to have been a lengthy discussion on objectivity, although it does not seem like any changes have been made to address any of the suggestions people have made to help improve the article. There were some really intelligent responses and suggestions, however unfortunately the discussion strayed from the issues, so I thought it would be best to create a new topic. I also noticed that editing the article was not available, so here are my suggestions ...

There are 2 main issues I've noticed. First, I agree with the original editors suggestion to rewrite the opening sentence. One of his suggestions was, "White privilege is the theory that people identified as white benefit from particular privileges, ..." however I think the definition from YourDictionary is more accurate.

Current Text: White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

From YourDictionary: In critical race theory, a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from society as on the disadvantages that non-white people experience.

I also think any reference to Western Countries either needs to be removed from the opening sentence as it contradicts the opening sentence in the Global section of the article, "White privilege functions differently in different places," which is accurate. In other words, the following sentence does not work ...

''White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Russia or Spain, etc ...

The second issue is the last sentence of the third paragraph.

Conservative critics have offered more direct critiques of the concept; one writes that "today ... the lives of minorities are no longer stunted by prejudice and 'white privilege'",[9] while another says that the concept is a danger to the project of achieving an equal society.[10]

I think it would sound fine if the word "Conservative" was removed, and the following comment by Morgan Freeman could be a good addition to illustrate that their are both conservative and progressive critics of the theory ...

On Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2014 CNN Host Don Lemon posed the question to Oscar winner Morgan Freeman: “Do you think race plays a part in wealth distribution or either a mindset that you can’t?” Without hesitation, and to Lemon’s surprise, Freeman replied: “Today? No. You and I…we’re proof.” “Why would race have anything to do with it?” said Freeman. “Put your mind to what you want to do and go for that. It’s kind of like religion to me. It’s a good excuse for not getting there.”

These are the only notes I have made so far, but I'd be happy to go through the article meticulously and make further changes if I'm allowed to edit ... or if someone else is going to make any changes, please take these notes into consideration. :)

Hayscole (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)HaysCole 8/20/2016

References

Hello, Hayscole, and welcome to Wikipedia. There are several problems with your suggestions. First, the definition of white privilege at YourDictionary.com is copied from wikt:white privilege/Wiktionary, an online dictionary whose content is user-generated. Our guideline on sources doesn't allow the use of user-generated content; the content of Wikipedia is supposed to be based on what's been published by reliable sources.

The second is that the chat between Don Lemon and Morgan Freeman didn't take place on Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2014, as you wrote. It was on Tuesday, June 3, 2014. So that makes me skeptical that you're here to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia and more inclined to think you're just copying and pasting something you read on another website.

Finally, because Lemon and Freeman didn't discuss white privilege, we can't use their discussion as a source for this article, any more than we could use it as a source for NASA. Using it would violate another of our rules, a policy against interpreting sources to say things that they don't. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Malik, thank you for your quick reply. Although I'm a bit confused with your response. I have 2 suggestions, change the opening sentence and remove "conservative," from the third paragraph because it violates the rules of objectivity. I suggested adding the comment by Morgan Freeman because it has been included in countless articles but you are right I made a mistake on the date. The board is locked for editing, there is no reason to proof my contribution because I have not made anything but a suggestion. Although, it means what I said it does, but that is kinda irrelevant, so you can believe as you wish and I shall continue to believe what I do. Regardless, if you don't feel they are appropriate then don't use them. Just remove the word "conservative" because there are both progressive and conservative critics and that statement is currently false and not objective. Now regarding the opening sentence, you said "First, the definition of white privilege at YourDictionary.com is copied from wikt:white privilege/Wiktionary, an online dictionary whose content is user-generated." Here is the current text you have in place ...

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

Can you please show me the source for the above statement? Is it not user-generated? Why can't it be replaced by a user-generated sentence? I don't think the yourdictionary definition is perfect, I think it should combine the original editors comments and that is why I wrote the comment about not using "Western Countries." Besides, I assumed we would not be allowed to use the sentence as written from yourdictionary or am I wrong? It's not really important. I don't care if my ideas are used, I just think it needs to be accurate. What would you suggest for a new opening sentence? Are you going to remove the word "conservative?" Thanks for your help. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayscole (talk • contribs) 13:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected: new or anonymous editors cannot edit it, due to past disruption and vandalism. The lead is intended to summarize the body of the article, per MOS:LEAD. Although it is sometimes convenient, especially for controversial articles, it's not required to cite statements in the lead if they are well-supported in the rest of the article (which they should be anyway). The use of the word "conservative" seems acceptable. It's describing one of several critical points of view, and is a small part of a larger paragraph. Wikipedia is user generated, but it has guidelines which prohibit using similar content: WP:UGC. We cannot quote from yourdictionary.com, or use it as a source. The "Global" section is the shortest in the otherwise lengthy article. It could probably use some attention, also, but it says that the term's use in non-Western countries is atypical, so using that to remove the term from the lead would be giving undue weight to an uncommon usage. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, thank you very much for your considerate reply. I really enjoy and appreciate Wikipedia and would like to help once I've become familiar with the technical and procedural editing process. I really appreciate your meticulous explanation and I thank you again for elaborating on my questions. I re-read the opening of the article with your comments in mind. I respect your opinions, but I still think the third, and actually fourth paragraphs, insinuate right-wing and conservative critics alone have been hostile and critical of those studying and proselytizing white privilege. I think it unfairly politicizes an already controversial issue that should be equally embraced by conservatives and progressives alike. If you think the word "conservative" is "acceptable" and adds important information to help the clarity of the article, shouldn't the opening four paragraphs also include quotes, in the same context, from progressives and/or liberals, who have also offered, "more direct critiques," such as Bill Mahrer, Morgan Freeman, Rebecca Trotter, etc ...?" I can provide you links, although I'm sure you have seen or read them. Anyway, I hope my suggestion is helpful to anyone editing the article. Also, if anyone would like links to two really informative articles on white privilege in Spain and Russia, please let me know. Thank you again Grayfell for your kind help. :) Hayscole (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Hayscole 8/21/2016

I hadn't heard of Rebecca Trotter before, but after looking for info, I do not believe she's a reliable source or recognized expert by Wikipedia's standards (her blog and books are all WP:SPS, mainly). I'm guessing you're referring to this article? Again, it's not a reliable source, but it does raise the point that the term is useful in "colleges and and multi-cultural training seminars". Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines strongly favor the opinions of experts, which often means academics, such as colleges and... "multi-cultural training seminars", I guess. Shelby Steele is an academic (a fellow at the Hoover Institution) who is enough of an expert that his opinion is of interest, and he's definitely a conservative (again, a fellow at the Hoover Institution). Morgan Freeman is a popular actor, and Bill Maher is a popular comedian, but they are not sociologists or experts on race, so we would need to be able to explain why we are citing their opinions about the term, and we need reliable, independent sources to do the explaining. These sources have to be specifically about white privilege, also, otherwise it would be WP:OR, as Malik Shabazz already said. If we had those sources, we could figure out whether it's helpful to qualify their opinions as liberal or not. Specifically digging around for contrary opinions which qualify as liberal is asking for trouble. For one thing, it risks cherry-picking, and for another, it's false balance.

As for David Marcus of The Federalist, I would prefer to remove him and the source, as I don't accept that his opinion is particularly relevant, especially since it's just rehashing and supporting Steele's work. That said, the existence of questionable sources isn't justification for adding more. Grayfell (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is the article written by Rebecca Trotter. I haven't read her book, but you are correct, she is not from the same parts of "Acadamia" as some of the other sources used by Wikipedia. I don't think anyone looking for "white privilege critics" would be cherry-picking, per say. I think we all have forgotten where we read articles or watched programming from time to time ... and for some of us old guys, the memory is just not what it used to be. I've never heard of Shelby Steele, so I would have to ask, with all due respect, if the author of this article was cherry-picking quotes? The article is politicized and biased towards a specific political party, even if it is in a very subtle, perhaps, unintentional way. Regardless, I think Jason Versey, a contributor for the Huffington Post, wrote a piece for his personal blog that could work ... but I just really think the best way to accurately address the issue of critical progressive and conservative critics is to simply remove the last sentence in the third and fourth the paragraphs. What important piece of information do those two sentences communicate to the reader? Verbose is a great word, I noticed you used it above, and I think the same can be said for the opening of this article ... it could be more concise. I think we both agree the article is too long. I believe the opening four paragraphs use too many quotes and strays from explaining a "bi-partisan" overview of the subject. I think the entire article would be well-served by removing irrelevant information (Such as: The Federalist) and subjective quotes. Are you planning to edit the article?Hayscole (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)HaysCole 8/22/2016

I'm a bit confused by the suggested metrics for inclusion. The burden of proof is on the affirmative to prove that such a thing as white privilege even exists, in the first place, or has a significant impact on other social systems. It seems that this article accepts such information at face value (i.e. Peggy Macintosh's assertion, attributed or otherwise, is used in the lede of the article despite establishing no facts or proven premises) meanwhile accepting only contrary information from academic sources specifically refuting the concept which is otherwise taken for granted. Why has the burden shifted and how is this not, by definition, a false balance? Scoundr3l (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, blogs and self-published books are not reliable sources, so Versey isn't usable. If you would like to learn more about Shelby Steele, you can read the article, which has reliable, independent sources. Rebecca Trotter and Jason Versey do not have articles, and from what I saw at a glance, are unlikely to in the future. The word bipartisan makes me wary, here. It's a good goal for two-party congresses, but not for Wikipedia. I'm not happy with the lead for several reasons, but the term is heavily politicized, and trying to downplay that is non-neutral. Unflattering sources aren't necessarily biased, and biased sources aren't necessarily unusable.

White privilege is accepted as a concept by the overwhelming majority of relevant reliable sources. This part, at least, is made clear in the article. Reliable sources which are critical of it concede that it has existed in the past, or still exists in some form, or is otherwise relevant to discussions of racial inequality. As has already been discussed to death above, and multiple times in the archives, and probably multiple noticeboards, this is accepted by reliable sources. It's not a controversial theory, because it's not really a theory. At many points in history, such as in South Africa, the US, etc., "white" had a discrete legal meaning which conferred legal, social, economic, educational, etc., privileges. Saying or indicating otherwise would be a violation of WP:FRINGE. Based on that and much more, the burden has already been met by dozens and dozens of sources already used. As for the contemporary value of the concept or phrase, there is already a lengthy paragraph in the lead, and many more in the body, discussing these questions. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Grayfell, that is extremely helpful. So, according to reliable sources and the examples you have used, Cory Weinburg would not be a reliable source and the last sentence of the fourth paragraph should be removed? If you haven't already, please read the source material for this sentence ...

Cory Weinburg, writing for Inside Higher Ed, has stated that the concept of white privilege is frequently misinterpreted by non-academics because it is an academic concept that has been recently been brought into the mainstream. Academics interviewed by Weinburg, who have been otherwise studying white privilege undisturbed for decades, have been taken aback with the seemingly-sudden hostility from right-wing critics since 2014.[13] - 13. Weinburg, Cory (May 28, 2014). "The White Privilege Moment". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 19 January 2016.

Mr. Weinburg wrote; "Scholars fend off right-wing opposition as concept attracts mainstream attention," however the author of the white privilege article changed the word, "opposition" to "hostility," which changes the source material and is violating another Wikipedia rule I read. Furthermore, in his article, Mr. Weinburg does not divulge his sources, he just randomly attributes the quote to multiple scholars, which is not verifiable. However, again, the source does not meet the standard you have explained to me above. Also, during my research of the article I discovered that the source material referenced for several quotes did not discuss white privilege, however both you and Malik told me that was not allowed according to WP:OR. The first one is number#4 by Eric Arnesen and I don't believe Du Bois ever used the term white privilege. So, I'm not sure I really understand that rule yet but I will go back through it later. I have not gone through the entire article, however I can if it will be helpful to anyone who decides to edit this article? Please just let me know. Thanks again for your help Grayfell. PS: I put bi-partisan in quotes to indicate I was not using the word literally ... I was trying to make you laugh, not frown. :) Hayscole (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I've said before that I would like to trim some of the quotes from the lead, but since this has already been discussed, I'm deferring to other editors until I feel that consensus has changed following policy-based arguments.

I think you have misunderstood policy about sources. WP:V doesn't work like that. We don't expect sources to always cite sources (who must also cite sources, all the way down). Inside Higher Ed is a news website, it is not self-published source. While Weinburg may be obscure, it does appear to be a reliable source. It could stand to be rephrased for neutrality, but it does support the claim that there has been specific opposition to the concept from the right-wing. W. E. B. Du Bois was a preeminent scholar who's death predates the term (or at least its wide-spread usage). His opinion on the underlying concept is relevant, even if he wouldn't have used the specific phrase. I can see a case for removing or trimming the quote, but comparing, even obliquely, Du Bois to modern bloggers frankly seems silly. I don't know about the Arnesen material, as the link isn't loading for me (which doesn't, by itself, mean it should be removed, per WP:LINKROT). It also looks like it should be rephrased for brevity and neutrality, though. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that sounds great, thanks again for taking the time to address my questions. I really appreciate your time. :)Hayscole (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Objectivity

There is no justification for writing the intro to this article with the same certainty that would be used when describing a species of bird or a country. I understand that the people responsible for writing this article are likely to be convinced of White Privilege theory, but it's intellectually dishonest of you to write about it without acknowledging that it is a theory. The intro says "White privilege ... is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries." It should say "White privilege refers to alleged societal privileges" or even more accurately "White privilege is the theory that people identified as white benefit from particular privileges." To draw an analogy, the article in the way it is currently written is akin to an article about communism saying "Communism refers to the inevitable transformation of society into an egalitarian paradise through a worker's revolution which has not happened yet, but will."50.148.245.221 (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC) — 50.148.245.221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's unclear whether or not 50.148.245.221 thinks that white privilege exists or not. He has not cited anyone who states that white privilege does not exist. The solution to this complaint is for someone to include a reliable source that denies the existence or importance of white privilege. Rjensen (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's the point the IP was making, unless they were also making the point that communism doesn't exist. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I take particular issue with the argument "He has not cited anyone who states that white privilege does not exist." That is not relevant. The burden of proof is always upon the party making the allegation. But furthermore it is not Wikipedia's place to affirm or deny the validity of a subjective belief such as this one. That's what I'm saying: the ONLY correct way for this article to be written objectively is for the word "theory," "allegation," or "belief" to be prominently featured in the very first sentence. To do otherwise is to grant de-facto validation to the theory, which violates neutrality.03:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.245.221 (talk) — 50.148.245.221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

the meaning of neutrality for Wikipedia is defined as from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. WP:neutrality. There are many citations in the article that support white privilege as something that really exists. I've seen no citations to reliable sources that denies the reality of white privilege. Therefore the article meets the neutrality criteria-- unless someone finds an alternative viewpoint/denial that needs to be included. Rjensen (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the first IP's analysis of the article's opening paragraph. Upon first glance, as an unbiased reader, I was concerned with the opener presenting white privilege as a matter of fact rather than as a social theory. Based on this initial observation, I would say that the article is not coming from a neutral point of view, as intended, but rather the original author may have allowed their personal viewpoint of the subject to escape into the article. At a minimum, I think it would be fair to cite the article as being an inconclusive, controversial subject that is open to debate, as evidenced by the large amount of edits/reversions that seem to be occurring on this article. This would help to better represent dissenting viewpoints that do not necessarily agree with the concept of perceived societal advantages based upon race or skin color. Would it be possible to discuss a round of revisions to the article to help better represent the theory of race based privileges in relation to its dissenters? In regards to sources for dissenting viewpoints, what would be considered a reliable source? I would like to help contribute to this discussion in any way possible. Riftcast (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC) — Riftcast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Many articles are on contentious topics, or suffer from edit-warring and vandalism, but that doesn't actually mean they are wrong, so using that as a reason to change an article would set a nasty precedent. Whether or not a viewpoint is dissenting or not is established by sources, which should not be used to misrepresent a WP:FRINGE perspective outside of WP:DUE weight. Discussion is of course a possibility, but consider that it appears your points have already be discussed before multiple times: Talk:White privilege/Archive index. Info on sources can be found here: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The article already has many, many reliable sources which accept that white privilege exists. Keep that in mind when searching for counter-examples, because ignoring sources you disagree with to highlight ones you agree with is cherry-picking. Grayfell (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful links to the Wikipedia policy articles. I really do appreciate it.

I'd like to say that while edit sparring and vandalism don’t invalidate an argument in any way, the number of unique individuals attempting to modify the article in some way does illustrate discourse and an opportunity for debate over the subject. The article's neutrality seems to be the most widely debated topic in the archived posts; I think this should be taken into consideration when deciding the state of this article’s objectivity. It appears many visiting readers are detecting bias in the way the article is written at present. To their credit, the theory of white privilege is not currently a validated social science. Because of this fact, it remains subject to criticism, and I'd assert that this is understandable, given the theory's implications. Even though many articles have been written on the subject, the theory itself has not been proven to be without exceptions. In fact, as it stands, an analysis of an individual’s personal experiences can poke holes in the theory due to the nature of the vast and diverse populations it attempts to generalize.

I would also like to rebut your argument on sources. Many of the sources that have been cited as evidence supporting this theory stem from opinion articles. Though they reside on reputable websites, such as the Huffington Post source for reference #11, the referenced articles represent limited personal perspectives on this subject that do not cite hard, factual evidence or data supporting the existence of white privilege. Reviewing the majority of sources included in the references section of this article, I can reasonably conclude that little to no hard evidence has surfaced that supports the assertion that any group of people have inherently been given or are entirely responsible for perceived socioeconomic advantages over another population of a different race. There doesn’t appear to be any facts to support the conclusion arrived upon by the theory of white privilege at current. In the case of an observed imbalance between two people of different races, it is logical to conclude that the differences noted can be reduced to an analysis of the two individuals' living histories rather than concluding that differences in appearance are entirely to blame for any perceived socioeconomic disparity.

It is always best to promote fairness and truth in any article; I would be willing to draft a revision to the introduction paragraph that represents each viewpoint fairly and with proper weight given to each side. I could post the text to pastebin for review, if that would be allowable. I don't think any perspective should be outright dismissed to cater to the illusion of a majority consensus, especially on such an open subject. Until reliable, factual evidence can be produced that establishes one view as being right over the other, I think it's fair to represent both sides, at least showing that there is, indeed, discourse with the proposals made by this theory. Riftcast (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC) — Riftcast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What does "validated social science" mean? Where in this article does it imply that white privilege is without exception? As I said, this has come up before multiple times, so forgive me for being brusk: It looks like you are presenting a case against white privilege by misrepresenting what white privilege means. If you would like to refute "the conclusion arrived upon by the theory of white privilege at current" you must first demonstrate that you understand what the term means if you want anyone to take you seriously. Nobody anywhere is saying that white people cannot be subject to prejudice, or that white people always have it easier than non-white people in all situations. The differences in people's "living histories" is exactly what white privilege is about. Those differences are influenced by racism, and have been for generations. That's exactly the point. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for the lack of clarification. To define it briefly, a 'validated social science' is a subject in social science which has had its data cross-examined using several different methods to reinforce a conclusion posited by the subject’s original hypothesis. There is an informative book (ISBN 978-3-319-07794-9) relating to validating social concepts if you'd like to learn more. Wikipedia also has an article on a method of validation used in social sciences called 'Triangulation'. The concept of white privilege cannot currently be validated in this manner due to the lack of direct real-world data supporting the theory’s proposition.

My understanding of white privilege comes from the opening sentence of the article which defines the term. White privilege is “a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.” This definition does not mention that there are or can be exceptions to this concept nor that it is a theory at all, rather, it presents white privilege as a matter of fact. I would say this definition gives undue weight to the validity of the white privilege theory and is likely the cause behind the enormous number of complaints this article receives on objectivity. One word within the definition, ‘commonly’, could imply there are exceptions to this postulate, but without evidence or data to support this ‘common’ observation, ‘commonly’ becomes meaningless in this context. If an exception can be made to the ‘common observation’, it is left implicitly vague. Please correct my understanding if I have erred. I think that an alternative definition should be provided that filters the language to be more neutral and factual, such as:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a social theory that suggests people born with lighter colored skin in Western cultures are inherently granted social, political, or economic advantages over people of darker colored skin or different cultural backgrounds.

I think this definition represents the theory more clearly, neutrally, and factually, though there are alternative wordings that could be used; my suggestion is merely an example of a more neutral definition. I hope that the term ‘theory’ in this context isn’t misconstrued to mean anything other than its usage as a scientific term. It is not a sign of disparagement to call a subject a theory, but rather it's a recognition of the fact that there is a significant body of articles that expound upon and explain white privilege from many individual perspectives, though research on this subject is an ongoing effort to solidify its status as a contemporary fact. Riftcast (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC) — Riftcast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's what I was afraid you meant. I don't see how this proposal is an improvement. The article makes it clear in the first sentence that this is a term (or a concept). Terms are not theories. "Orbit" is a term, "gravity" is a theory. Gravity is also a "contemporary fact" (I assume, although I don't know exactly what that is supposed to mean) so the idea that a theory is not a fact is, at best, imprecise. As the very first paragraph makes clear, the concept of white privilege is used by multiple academic perspectives (and theories) for analysis. Recasting this as a scientific theory would misrepresent the concept, and the only upshot is to undermine its validity in a way that is not supported by sources. This is not a neutral proposal. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Except it is a social theory and Riftcast's proposal is neutral. His proposal is a huge improvement and i support the effort to revise the intro.OoflyoO (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

White privilege is not a social theory though (whether meant as a paradigm/framework or as a classical social scientific theory like routine activities theory). It's an element born of the critical race paradigm. The lack of triangulation is primarily because it's not been operationalized for quantitative data collection (well, some have started to do so). We don't have a scale for it that you can do concurrent validity tests on. You run into similar issues with other concepts like patriarchy where you have conceptualizations and operationalizations (e.g., measures of gender inequality like the gender inequality index), but they're proxy measures. Similarly, we have concepts like the symbolic interactionism's "signs" or George Herbert Mead's symbol or Foucault's "gaze". They are concepts meant to aid in our understanding of macro/grand and mid-level theories (more accurately called frameworks and paradigms). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The noun and verb and main object of the lead sentence are: "White privilege is a term." That's just true. NPOV.

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.

Now, it would still be a problem if the the stuff that white privilege is a term for something that didn't exist and the article pretended it does. The idea that nonwhites face discrimination to some degree is a popular, majority view (see here, for example). It's also abundantly documented and accepted in the academic and historical literature. So, to state that "white privilege" is term for a set of advantages for white people does not violate NPOV. Any criticism should come after the opening sentence.--Carwil (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I’m very glad to see that others have joined in this discussion.

My argument to Grayfell’s explanation is that the term white privilege is, indeed, a name for a social theory as defined by the body of this article. As much as gravity is a term for a theory that attempts to explain the exact mechanisms behind the attraction of two distinct masses, so too is white privilege a term for a social theory that attempts to explain noteworthy differences in socioeconomic standings between different groups of people in Western society. The term orbit, borrowing from your analogy, is different from a theory because one can directly prove that an object has an orbit around another by making observations, collecting data, and using mathematics to validate the existence of this property for the object in question. If one were to claim that some object has an orbit around another object, they would be expected to validate their claims; in this case, it’s possible to use data collection and mathematical equations to verify whether or not the hypothesis is accurate. As noted, the theory of white privilege currently does not have a method by which to validate its claim, thus it is a theory, not an incontrovertible fact. I believe this is a logical observation; what do you think?

As with any term, the precise definition is critically important. I shall continue to uphold my stance that the theory of white privilege is not currently a fact due to one’s inability to arrive at the proposed conclusion of the theory by use of empirical evidence. You may be able to find many concurrent opinions on a given subject matter, but without direct data to back up the claims made by those giving the opinions, the conclusion cannot be validated. To claim that white privilege is a simple fact without evidence injures its credibility, taking it out of the realm of science and turning it into a strongly held opinion. To do this is extraordinarily detrimental not only to the exposure of the problem the theory attempts to address, but also to the research being conducted in this field, hence my insistence on a more accurate, neutral definition.

To address EvergreenFir, I’d like to first say that I am glad you have joined the discussion. As you’ve likely seen in previous arguments for redefining the currently given definition of white privilege to be more neutral, it is the lack of triangulation and other forms of verification with which I am most concerned. Because the theory cannot currently be validated by facts and evidence, it has no method by which to prove that it’s the most accurate explanation for the observed socioeconomic disparity between multiple groups of people. This is not a biased analysis, but a simple fact. I would suggest that it is intellectually deceptive to imply the theory of white privilege is a proven social science, given that all of the complex mechanisms at play are not yet fully understood.

Making the definition factual and neutral does not hurt the theory’s position, but rather strengthens it. People outside of the discussion can learn about it in a non-partial way and contribute positively rather than immediately dismissing the theory due to implicit bias. We can also mitigate confirmation bias among those that assert the theory’s conclusion as fact from influencing discussions; instead, they can participate equally and help improve the article with neutral sources, data, and facts. Currently, instead of productive contributions, we see dissonance and partisanship between two groups that are unable to cooperate and improve upon this article. Giving undue scientific validity to such a controversial subject is disastrously counter-productive to the efforts of social scientists that are still researching it.

I’d also like to thank OoflyoO for joining us. I’m glad that my reasoning and example definition can be interpreted as neutral by a third party. If you have any ideas on how to further improve upon a new definition or other parts of the introduction paragraph, it would benefit everyone to hear them. Riftcast (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC) — Riftcast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

But it's not an "attempt to explain noteworthy differences in socioeconomic standing" (although someone could easily put forward the proposition that "white privilege explains nonwhite poverty," and that would be an explanatory theory), it is a term compiling societal privileges. Let's take two baseline cases and start from there: apartheid South Africa and the Jim Crow United States. In these contexts, the rights to vote, to full access to public accommodation, to testify against all other people, to be tried by a jury of one's peers (among many others) were examples of "societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances." This is exactly like an orbit: "one can directly prove that" certain things constitute white privilege "by making observations, collecting data," and analyzing legal and social structures. If you can't see that, you are either opposed to social science per se, or are heavy denial about the history of racism.

Assuming you're following me so far, then even if someone denies that any such privileges exist in the present , and says "white privilege no longer exists," that's still not grounds for rephrasing the lead. We have included a criticism by Shelby Steele stating exactly that. Even assuming that criticism were the undisputed case (and it's not), we would have an article like Indenture. The definition would still be factual and neutral even if it were only applicable to the past.--Carwil (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The theory of white privilege is, indeed, an attempt to explain noteworthy differences in socioeconomic standing between different groups of people in Western society. Omitting the latter half of my statement destroys the context of my words and attempts to reframe my given explanation as a more generalized and flawed definition that does not appropriately address this phenomenon. While I do not believe you have done so intentionally, when you break up a quote and proceed to critically assess only a segment of it rather than address the full context of the statement, you create a logical fallacy known as a ‘straw man argument’; to summarize such an argument, it occurs when one party attempts to reframe the discussion around a point that appears similar to the original, then proceeds to dismantle the newly generated, weaker argument. Had I not specified the latter part of my sentence, I would have no choice but to concede to your argument that my suggested neutral definition was critically flawed. That is not the case, however, as my explanation did not fail to address the very point you've brought up.

The various societal privileges granted to each group of people in your examples does not necessarily constitute an incontrovertible case for the theory of ‘white privilege’. An alternative interpretation is that a biased majority, which controls the national political systems in both of your examples, was able to oppress a minority group by leveraging their social, economic, and/or political advantages over them. The skin color of each group does not necessarily need to be taken into account in order for such a system of oppression to emerge. Allow me to explain my reasoning with an example.

Though I’m sure I’ll fetch ridicule for bringing up this horrid man’s hateful leadership, it serves as a well-known example that, in this case, reinforces my point. In Germany, by leverage of mass propaganda, Hitler was able to convince a majority of people in German society that Jews, a religious group painted by Hitler as an entirely different race, were the cause of all of society’s problems. Anyone identified as a Jew was stripped of their societal privileges, their freedoms, and even their right to live by Hitler's Nazi regime, even though they were almost entirely superficially (and, as with all known races, genetically) indistinguishable from their oppressors. Most people that practiced the Jewish faith during this period of time were white or light skinned; here, we see that skin color played no role in determining who was a target for oppression. In fact, Hitler’s regime pursued, oppressed, incarcerated, and murdered millions of similarly light skinned people simply because they did not possess certain phenotypic characteristics. I understand that, yes, this is an extreme example of systemic oppression, but it demonstrates that skin color does not necessarily have anything to do with the inherent granting of societal privileges. Because my given perspective could be used as an equally viable explanation for the observations in your stated examples, I uphold that white privilege is and remains, at current, a social theory, not a validated fact. As such, its current presentation in this article is biased due to the diction used in its definition that suggests that it is a fact when it is not. The term should be redefined to be more neutral and factual, as I have proposed in my arguments for updating it; I have even offered a suggestion for a more accurate definition. If a better, more accurate definition can be gained, I hope that another contributor will reply to this discussion and offer it up for peer review.

There is no doubt that racism played a very significant role in both of your stated examples, but I would cast heavy doubt over whether or not a specific coloration of either group's skin was responsible for the observed oppression. Racism is one of many tools of hatred used to oppress an individual or a group of individuals; I believe that anybody, regardless of the color of their skin, can utilize racism in fallacious, demeaning ad hominem attacks against others. No person on Earth should feel ashamed of who they are as an individual just because of their physical appearance.

It’s very important that we do not give in to confirmation bias for or against any particular viewpoint, lest we choose to play the fool. Rationalize the information given, then approach it from as many perspectives as possible. For this very reason, I encourage anybody reading this discussion to participate, even if you feel your view is not popular or in line with any perceived consensus. Please, share your thoughts and help contribute to building this article. Riftcast (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC) — Riftcast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not going to lie, that's too long for me to have read very carefully. You know you're being verbose, you say so in your edit summaries, so you need to work on being concise. What I got from this is more of the old argument that some light skinned people did not have privilege in some situations, which is true, but has very little to do with white privilege as it's defined by the article. If you think skin color isn't a factor in discrimination, you're wrong, but again, that's not actually what white privilege is about. Notice that the lead says "people identified as white". "White" is a social construct with shifting boundaries that is only partially defined by skin hue. People who are identified as white have been granted privileges in certain times and places. Sometimes there is discrimination towards white people, either from non-white people or from other white people, but that's not what this article is about, and trying to alter this to be about that badly misrepresents the concept. Grayfell (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Riftcast, two brief responses:

1. In numerous cases we could come up with (not Hitler, sorry), white is the actual legal category. (Grayfell is correct in noting that this isn't just a skin color, see White people). This includes the example I mentioned of apartheid South Africa. It also includes the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the rules of evidence in most American states prior to 1900, which accorded "white people" the exclusive right to testify against other white people in court. White privilege is a term for a real thing that did, and does, exist.
2. The fact that you personally believe that white privilege is not these things but either "is the theory that people identified as white benefit from particular privileges" or "an inconclusive, controversial subject that is open to debate" is not relevant to how we write the article. Wikipedia's job isn't to represent your beliefs, but human knowledge using reliable sources. (Here's an introduction: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and a particularly relevant section WP:SCHOLARSHIP.) For reasons I've already stated, we introduce topics with their definition and that later describe dissenting opinions, which are currently included in the lead section. If you'd like to find good sources to amplify the dissent, I encourage you to do so. But saying you don't believe in white privilege isn't really an argument for changing an encyclopedia entry.--Carwil (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

What is the problem with stating that white privilege is theoretical term? Theoretical terms like this denote theoretical entities, which are postulated hypothetically by a theory. The “term” itself contains built-in theories; It is part of a theoretical framework.OoflyoO (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Being part of one or more theoretical frameworks doesn't make it a theory. There are already multiple, lengthy explanations of this on this talk page. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It is painfully obvious that the objectivity debate has been specifically stonewalled by a Wikipedia editor who has a bias, and who does not have impartiality as his or her main goal. The proposed revisions to the opening sentence were all improvements over the misleading current opening sentence. The people questioning the validity of stating that White Privilege is a factual and provable thing had realistic, logical reasoning behind their requested changes, and none of them displayed any bias whatsoever. However, the opposition (Mainly run by one person) simply dismissed each well thought out reason with nothing more than an attitude of "You Can't Make Me" . As it stands now this article reads like propaganda for Grayfell's opinion. White Privilege is a Theory. He refuses to admit that because he fears that the term "theory" gives his strong, biased opinion less weight. It was mentioned that there should be a "Criticisms" section. He denied that because he doesn't consider criticism of his strongly held belief to be valid, so he doesn't want it included. He simply shot down each and every idea with no quality argument to back his opinion. This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. It is not Educational. People can get the same information from the Black Lives Matter page, or from pundits at Salon. It is too bad that political ideology has trumped integrity again in this case. — 24.249.25.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC).

What is painfully obvious is that "I don't like it" isn't a valid criticism, no matter how you phrase it. If you can't find criticism of "white privilege" in the article, install a modern web browser that allows you to search for text—because there's plenty of criticism in the article. What you won't find is a criticism section, and its absence is a good thing. It means the criticism has been appropriately integrated throughout the article instead of being ghettoized in a "criticism section". See WP:C SECTION. And the fact that something is a "theory" means nothing. Gravity is also a theory, as is evolution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If the fact that it is a theory means nothing, then why do you and other biased contributors and commentators fight tooth and nail against calling it one? Instead you want to obfuscate the facts and state "White Privilege" as if it is a factual, tangible thing that has been proven. False, it is a theory. The previous arguments do not include "I Don't Like It" as a defense for any changes, while you entire defense seems to be "I believe in it, and I want it to be true so it must be stated as a fact". This article, the way it is written, is propaganda by the few Wikipedia users on this discussion who have decided to fight for their belief in the subject matter rather than the integrity of the encyclopedia article. The opening sentence should include the word Theory. Until it has, this whole article is a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.25.228 (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Burden of proof shifting, McCarthyism, and censorship are not "forums only" topics

This article claims white privilege is a clearly identifiable real concept when "white privilege" actually has no consensus on its meaning and it is currently an unfalsifiable theory that can be neither proven true nor untrue. The defense of this article's wording seems to be that no one can *disprove* the unfalsifiable theory. Of course you can't *disprove* it! You can't *disprove* an "invisible package of unearned privileges that white people may not know that they have". We also can't disprove Freud's theories, but at least we can aknowledge openly,that they are in fact theories, but we can't do that with white privelege? That is totally unethical and deceptive.

I have also noticed that the criticism section has been removed. As "white privilege" is sometimes misused as a form of thinly veiled sophisticated bigotry against white people, *the criticism section is essential*.

Furthermore, the shame intimidation about the topic is so severe that even if one is to criticize the theory, one can expect to be silenced and dismissed at best and downright vilified as a "privileged in denial" white person. That is Mccarthyism and a witchhunt tactic; perhaps the person reading this right now is assuming that I must be in denial of my privilege--that is how distorted "white privilege" has become. Wiki is escalating this distortion by censoring criticism, describing an unfalsifiable and vague theory as though it actually identifies a clear concept that has been in *any* sense proven to be true. This is the worst kind of propaganda I have ever seen on wiki. These issues are urgent and totally germane to this talk page. Please do not censor me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.237 (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Calling this censoring devalues the meaning of the word censorship. McCarthyism? Is not being taken seriously on a Wikipedia talk page comparable to being blacklisted for years, or of being convicted of treason in federal court? The sliver of a valid point you are making has already been discussed to death repeatedly. Were apartheid and Jim Crow laws a theory? Those are just some examples of situations where white people had privileges. Not in theory, but in those cases as laws, as in literal laws upheld by government courts. The point of the article is to explain and discuss how, according to academic sources, the concept, broadly approached, applies to that and other contexts, including ones that may not be as obvious. The rest of your post doesn't belong here, because, again, this isn't a forum for discussing the topic, this is for discussing how to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM - not the place to rant about Wikipedia's "bias" or your opinions about white privilege. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please do not censor me. If wiki's article is not deceptive, it can stand up to my criticism and doesn't need you to banish my words for no apparent reason. You are only proving the validity of my argument when you delete it. It says to me, that you yourself, know that this article is fraught with bias and can only remain published by means of censorship to eliminate dissent. MCCARTHYISM: "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism." "Sliver of a valid point"? This article makes unfair negative allegations: allegedly, all white people have a morally disparaging, unfalsifiable quality called "white privilege" and because they can't prove that they *aren't* "privileged", we can take "white privilege" as fact and censor any criticism of it. This is a textbook case of Mccarthyism. Mccarthyism isn't an analogy; it is a form of tyrannical behavior. Your making claims such as this is "not being taken seriously on Wikipedia page" doesn't speak well of your own bias if this is how you respond to criticism. And its being "discussed to death" only supports the validity of my claim to include a criticism section. Removing that section *is* censorship and *is* Mccarthyism as this article is denying both the possibility that "white privilege" has any conceptual fallacies *and* the fact that there is enough criticism to warrant a criticism section. I find it odd that you alluded to the Jim Crow laws and the Apartheid because those are historical events and thus incomparable to a vague unfalsifiable theory like "white privilege". I am not sure but perhaps you have alluded to these events as a way of insinuating that I am some sort of historical racism denier or maybe a white apologist so that way you could strawman my valid criticism? Or perhaps you hoped to "poison the well" of my credibility? Or maybe you hoped to sweep my criticism under the rug with race shame intimidation? I don't know. I'm pointing it out as it seems entirely unrelated to my post and totally uncalled for. What does it have to do with the definition of "theory"? THEORY "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." I will state my points more concisely and in "article revision" terms if it helps you to see that there is not a "sliver" of a problem but a massive plank. 1. Ommitting the words "theoretical concept" from the definition of the theoretical concept "white privilege" is a bald faced lie. There can be no justice without truth and WIKI HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INTEGRITY IF IT DELIBERATLY REFUSES TO PUBLISH THE TRUTH. 2. "White privilege" is not an empirically proven fact and as such it is open to criticism. 3. Removing the criticism section from a wiki entry on a highly criticized topic is censorship. McCarthyism is the definition of what wiki is *doing*, but if you prefer an analogy, here is a McCarthy analogy to illustrate my point of view: To me, it seems like, Greyfell and Wiki's talk page are, in effect, saying, "You can't prove you're not a communist, so therefore you are one. Your 'sliver of a valid point' objections have all been 'discussed to death' and all criticisms must be stricken from the official record. If you press the point, we will use emotionally charged historical allusions to strawman your argument or insinuate slanderous things about you. We will also ask you to not voice your criticisms here on the prestigous talk page as they 'will not be taken seriously' and we ask that you confine yourself and your silly objections to the forums." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.234 (talk • contribs)

Please only use this page to discuss the article, not its topic. If you want to debate the merits of this topic, do so in a social science class or on Reddit. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It sounds as though you didn't read what I wrote, that is, if you think my criticism is not about the article and its content. Please see the numbered (1,2,3) portion if you prefer not to read an in depth explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.234 (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Needles are hard to find in hay. The tl;dr version is that you want "theoretical concept" added to the lead? It's a theoretical perspective/framework really; a heuristic device or theoretical lens, not a positivist-style theory. But if that's you're point, it doesn't take 3000+ bits to say that. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I was defending my claim that this article is employing Mccarthyism tactics as Grayfell sought to discredit my point. If the length is a problem, feel free to delete the entirity of my lengthy reply today on these 2 contingencies 1. Delete Greyfell's attempt to discredit my original post and 2. You just include these new slightly revised points:

1. Ommitting the words "theoretical concept" from the definition of the theoretical concept "white privilege" is a bald faced lie. There can be no justice without truth and WIKI HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INTEGRITY IF IT DELIBERATLY REFUSES TO PUBLISH THE TRUTH. 2. "White privilege" is not an empirically proven fact and as such it is open to criticism. 3. Removing the criticism section from a wiki entry on a highly criticized and by *its own definition* a controversial topic is deceptive and is a form censorship

If this compromise is not satisfactory, please include both Grayfell's comment and my entire reply from today. This is a matter of principles and the truth and it is my right to protest if this article is stating lies or censoring criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.234 (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You state that 'it is my right to protest if this article is stating lies or censoring criticism'. Who granted you this right? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Defending the truth is not a privilege; it is a virtue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.234 (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The original post about shame intimidation is spot on. To not include "Theory" in the opening sentence makes this article pure propaganda. GrayFell is simply gaming the rules of Wiki-pedia editing to try to silence opposition. His defense of "We already discussed this" does not hold water, because anyone going through the discussion will see that many valid points are raised questioning why this is not identified as a theory, and he simply ignores them, or asks for proof that they are a theory. He ignores the burden of proof on himself to prove that it is more than a theory. What you actually have is an agenda driven editor who believes "White Privilege" is a fact. so he has put his own bias into the article and has been actively blocking anyone from correcting it. There has not been one single valid explanation for why this theory is not being called a theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doniboy71 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You're giving me a lot of credit for shaping an article I haven't actually edited that much. I'm not the one who wrote the lead, and it's been like that since long before I started watching it. If you want to address me, just talk directly to me as another person. So are you arguing with me because of my actions, or because I'm willing to explain the situation on this talk page?

There are some very vocal editors who dislike the concept of white privilege and repeatedly claim that it's used to intimidate or shame them. That is still not an argument for calling this a "theory", though, even if it were accurate. Other editors and I have given specific examples of white privilege in action. Is it a "fact" or a "theory"? Well, it was a fact of life in the past, and whether or not it still is should be explained, with sources, in the article. My use of historical examples of white privilege, such as Jim Crow and apartheid, is not intended as an insult or an attack. I am not trying to imply that by challenging the definition of the term you must be a white supremacist or anything like that. These examples do need to be brought up, however, because it's totally impossible to discuss white privilege without looking at its history. If you are saying that those are not examples of white privilege in action and are just theories, then you're going to need to explain that position with reliable sources. In other words, you need to do a lot more work than just complaining about my bias. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

There you go again. We need to prove a negative in order for you to agree to properly call this what it actually is. Your previous paragraph shows your bias, and how incorrect you are. You are arguing your belief rather than facts. Jim Crow laws were absolutely not 'White Privilege" , they were segregation, thats it. Their enforcement usually led to inferior conditions for African Americans, this was racism and oppression. This was not "White Privilege". Apartheid was absolutely not "White Privilege" Apartheid was racist and oppressive. I notice that you mention that I have to provide sources to prove that your examples are not White Privilege, when in fact, you haven't cited any sources proving that they were "White Privilege" How does the burden of proof shift to me proving the negative, instead of you proving your biased opinion? And that's where the discussion really needs to be, you and a few fellow editors do have a bias. You claim that it is no big deal to call it a Theory, but fight tooth and nail to prevent it, and you fight tooth and nail to eliminate a criticisms section, which is sorely needed. That is why this talk page has gone on so long, not because you have been answering the questions as they come up, but because you dismiss them each and every time. You and others. There are at least two better lede's in this history section that I have read so far. I will offer two facts that haven't been mentioned previously: Wikipedia correctly calls Critical Race Theory a theory, and White Privilege is a part of this theory, and thus is a theory itself. Your examples of Jim Crow Laws and Apartheid were overtly racist. This article states "White privilege denotes both obvious and less obvious passive advantages that white people may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice" Therefore your examples are disqualified. They were not passive advantages, and they most definitely were overt. This is a theory, there is no doubt about it. There are no "Facts" proving a "passive advantage" that one race has over another. Anecdotal evidence is not fact. There are several examples of racism throughout the world, I suggest you go enter your opinions into that article and stop sandbagging this one from truly reflecting the subject rather than your strongly held opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doniboy71 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Critical race theory is a theoretical framework. That a concept is used by several such frameworks doesn't make it a theory itself. This article has 146 sources, and a bibliography, and a further reading list, but you have not provided anything new. We don't need to relitigate this issue every single time it comes up. Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I responded to your examples and proved that the ones you provided were completely inappropriate. You repeat over and over throughout this discussion page that it has "already been discussed", yet it hasn't. Again, you are simply blocking the change because of your personal belief. It has most definitely not been litigated, and the reason it keeps coming up is because you are wrong. You cite how many sources you have, please show me the one that says that this is not a theory. I have provided something new, you simply ignored it. At this point I believe that someone else needs to come in and weigh both sides of this debate, as it is quite obvious that the entire page has been hijacked by ideologues with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doniboy71 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

What new source have you provided? Give me a link, or ISBN, or something verifiable, otherwise you really can't claim to have provided anything new. Grayfell (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Conceptual Fallacy: A Majority *CAN NOT* be privileged

According to the US 2015 government census, in the US, where the term "white privilege" is most often applied, 77% of the population is white. The majority is "privileged"? The majority is "above average"? The majority can *never* be above average. Think about it.

It doesn't matter how you define "white privilege": the amount of "privilege" possessed by a majority cannot be above average.

If on the other hand, the word "privilege" now means "the majority experience" or even "the average experience", well then "privilege" ceases to have a meaning.

I know the goal of this term is to empower people of color to redefine their victimization of racism in terms that simply disparage the majority population as getting "extra benefits". However, the majority cannot get "extra benefits" if they are only getting *average* benefits. There is a reason why the authors censor criticism, remove criticism sections, write an extremely cluttered, vague and Kafkaesque definition of the term "white privilege"; that's because in the US, the term, as it currently is used, simply doesn't make any sense.

I have noticed that the authors have recently steeped to discrediting all criticism of "white privilege" by labeling it all as "sudden hostility from right-wing critics since 2014". I'm not right-wing. I'm super liberal and I have worked in low income communities as a teacher to help people of color for years. Racism is one of the biggest problems in this country and this is not in any way an attempt to undermine the importance of the cause of combating racism in America. However, you don't fight racism with lies. Lies are the enemy of justice.

My motive for criticizing this article is that I just don't like liars. Especially liars who pretend theories are conceptual realities. Liars who are afraid of the truth so much that they silence all criticism from a massive publication like this article. Liars that take advantage of the massive white guilt in America by threatening to vilify us if we don't accept an insulting, and dishonest overgeneralized description of us. What does that say about the validity of the concept of "white privilege" if it can't take any criticism?

Are you going to delete this too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.17 (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you're super liberal. That's a big ol' mess of WP:OR. Wikt:Privilege: "The fact of being privileged; the status or existence of (now especially social or economic) benefit or advantage within a given society." Perfectly applicable to a majority, but that doesn't even matter that much. We go by sources, not pontificating. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)