Talk:White privilege

Tone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Globolize

The article focuses exclusively on U.S., so we either should discuss white privilege in other countries (if we can) or change the article name to something like "White American privilege" or "European American privilege" noting in the article that its commonly referred in the U.S. as just white privilege. --RossF18 (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

White privilege as the absence of racism

Where is the peer-reviewed evidence that makes this phenomena a fact and not a theory? White privilege is a matter of dispute. Making it sound like settled science is hilarious. Einstein's ideas are listed on Wikipedia as theories. Peggy McIntosh wrote an essay. Great. That means that there are some ideas. But they are not a proven fact. --Knulclunk (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.221.240 (talk)

This was not my comment. I am uncertain why it was attributed to me.--Knulclunk (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

White privilege as theory

WP is a theory. That isn't a negative thing to say. Sociology is filled with theories. It certainly does not have enough empirical support to be presented as a fact. Al Einstein couldn't even get his stuff published as laws. They're theories. 72.79.221.240 (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Theory issue resolved

User:Malik Shabazz resolved the outstanding issues here.72.79.221.240 (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete article

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

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

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

Discussion fora?

I realize this hasn't much to do with the article, but can someone please direct me to a discussion forum on this issue? Mrcatzilla (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction Tag

The article was listed in the backlog as having a contradiction in the section dealing with statistics, but no reason for the or discussion on the contradiction can be found; only that one exists in that section. I have commented out the contradiction tag for now, but if someone feels it is still a contradiction, please either remove the contradiction or remove the section. Thanks much! Kjnelan (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Biased

Many parts of this article are unfounded biases that were cited from "scholars." A lot of terms used are broad and generalized. The "theory" of white privilege is in itself, discrimination of one race versus another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.112.85 (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kids in school

The sentence in question is about minority children in school. It is being used to set up a white privilege statistic about educational advantage. I am concerned that we are using two separate studies to make a point about "educational advantage". Can't the Shapiro reference cover both? Or should the section be removed? To BlisteringFreakachu --> If the "educational readiness" of minority children is a statistical factor in educational white privilege, should it not be included here? What is your concern?--Knulclunk (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole lot of Original research in the article that should be cleaned up. Thanks for taking action. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaps before kindergarten

"Gaps in school related cognitive skills between minority students and others develop before kindergarten"... The concern that this implies a difference in cognitive skills between blacks and whites is valid. I think the point that was being made is that inequities entering the educational system are magnified by the further by class placement. There are sources that confirm that pre-k school skills are related to income and home stability.

Or we could change "school related cognitive skills" to "school related skills".

Or we could leave this controversial statement out for now an focus on other significant problems with the article.

--Knulclunk (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

awful

The initial incarnation of the 'white privilege' article centered much more around the actual theory of white skin privilege as it tends to take shape in the physical reality of social-activist circles, whereas now when I go to read it, it resembles much more of a racism-recasted-as-white-skin-privilege word-mass. I know the difference between the two because I was one of the ones a few years back who helped mold the article into its original form. It's obviously taken wide shifts and expansions since then, but they all seem to be centered around trying to reclassify the basis of RACISM as one of "white skin privilege", despite a weak line in the beginning saying that 'scholars differentiate it from racism and prejudice.'

The white skin privilege article as it stands now is no more 'sourced' than it was in the days of its original incarnation, and certainly it's not more sourced than anything I tended to add in my most recent edits. The so-called "Criticism" section contains TWO lines of text, from a conservative/right-wing source, that I distinctly remember having been there in the original, with nothing else around it, especially nothing from the legions of radical-left critics who continue to denounce white skin privilege as a pseudo-theory and a bad basis to fight racism from. Those criticisms, while equally unsourced, were part of the original incarnation of the article, and if I felt like coming in and ripping apart the article as it stands and replacing it with an older version, I could do that, although you or someone close to you would undoubtedly promptly change it back.

I find the article as it stands now to be totally self-assured and to relegate "criticism" to a pathetic two-line bit of nothing that is uttered by an unreliable, right-wing source whose opinion on the matter would be of no consequence anyway. THAT IS NOT CRITICISM. The entire rest of the article is self-supporting and self-congratulatory, and makes no mention of the very real objections that anti-racist leftists have against the ethnic-nationalist-tainted "social theory" of white skin privilege that purports to maintain that all white people are on some level racist whether they know it or not. It has personally affected my own political activism, affected the political activism of those around me, sometimes prevented true political unity between our nonwhite comrades and ourselves (thankfully, very few in my circles believe in it), and so on. It is a poison more people should be encouraged NOT to drink. Instead, the article presents it as all-but-fact. If the article is not evened-out within the next few weeks I am going to nominate it for speedy deletion and we can start over. 74.64.126.116 (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion that the article is poorly sourced is laughable, considering that it has nearly 60 footnotes. In particular, both paragraphs in the "Criticism" section are referenced.

As I wrote on your Talk page, if you find verifiable reliable sources that support the criticism of "white privilege" you've been trying to add to the article, please feel free to add them. Until then, they seem like nothing more than a diatribe.

Finally, I'm curious which of the criteria for speedy deletion you think this article falls under. (Hint: None.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"

Your assertion that the article is poorly sourced is laughable, considering that it has nearly 60 footnotes. In particular, both paragraphs in the "Criticism" section are referenced."

The point is actually precisely that the "Criticism" is 1) a section, when it SHOULD be a significant section of the article, as well as including oppositional viewpoints in the introductory section, as do most articles on a social theory rather than a fact; and, 2) two paragraphs long, which is really what is 'laughable', if indeed anything about this unacceptably biased, self-congratulatory article is laughable at all (it personally makes me angry, but we'll leave that aside since no one's personal opinions on their own ever have to do with a wiki article — and please don't lampoon that by taking it out of context with a 'yeah, and all of this is your own personal opinion too' - it isn't).

May I ask you, Mr. Shabazz-- who put you in charge of this article? Who made it so that you, and mainly (if not at this point ONLY) you, gets to keep this article a self-congratulatory, haughty, identity-laden piece that has no place in journalistic objectivity? I propose that, given there's apparently no way to actually delete the article and start over, some opposition figures come in and apply the appropriate research to make this article more balanced. It's really intolerable that such a theory as 'white skin privilege', which is as much opposed on the radical left as it is lambasted (for its own, separate, and usually racist reasons) by the right, is allowed to stand in its current form on wikipedia. We do not need the concept of white skin privilege to fight racism, and the article should include that view loud and clear. It used to, but it's been changed so much and so deeply since then that I can't find an appropriate version to revert to, and it'd probably be flipped right back over to a Mr. Shabazz version if that were tried anyhow. Let's collectively sanction our disapproval please. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz, though it may be that this article could benefit from including more references to articles opposing the view that white privilege exists, I'd ask you to keep a couple of things in mind. One is that it is Wikipedia's policy to reflect scholarly consensus, and a cursory glance at Google Scholar results suggests that the majority of scholars who write about white privilege presuppose that it exists. The other thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is a work in progress, so even if there is a significant minority viewpoint that deserves to be included here, it's okay if the article lacks reference to them while we wait for people to step forward and provide relevant references. And keep in mind that the burden to find evidence for a claim probably shouldn't rest on those who feel it is a minority or fringe viewpoint.

I think the warning tag at the top of the page is problematic for many reasons, not the least of which is the phrase only a theory, which recalls the warning labels the Cobb County board of education wanted to put in the front of biology textbooks. Even if it were edited, I think it would still be unnecessary. It is sufficient to have the call out to people who support the minority viewpoint that you have already placed here on the Talk page. I'd encourage you to have faith that whatever view is the right one, people will (continue to) provide references to support it here. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

((Marie Paradox}}, first of all, I am a communist and Radical Left winger. You are, in your comments, passive-aggressively accusing me of being a racist right-winger, which I find personally offensive and I will not stand for. Secondly, it's not a "minority viewpoint" that white privilege is a theoretical construction, nor is it acceptable to have the criticism section restricted to a few paragraphs all the way in the middle of the article. You are plain wrong, and if you don't know it, other people who have nominated this article for deletion/rewriting have done so.

How dare you call me a racist. The differences between left-wing arguments and right-wing arguments against white skin privilege should be clear to you, and if they aren't, do YOUR research. Revolutionary communists are the last people in the world to be racist. We have done MORE to fight racism than believers in white skin privilege EVER will.

I will be re-tagging this article as 'theory'. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz, the first sentence says in plain English that white privilege is a construct in critical race theory. In other words, it's already identified as theory.

Your assertion that revolutionary communists aren't racist, that they can't be racist, is laughable. There are racists among followers of all political movements, including—yes—revolutionary communists. (See No true Scotsman before you argue that a racist isn't a true revolutionary communist.)

Finally, if you have a problem with the criticism section, stop belly-aching about it and fix it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz, I've responded to your various replies to me at my talk page. As Malik Shabazz has already said pretty much everything I would have wanted to say here and then some, I will simply note that if your view is not a minority viewpoint, it shouldn't be hard for you to find a relevant source to expand the criticisms section. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Or it could just mean that the only people that bother to write about white skin privilege are the ones who support it. (I won't feed into Shabazz's anti-communist stuff, it's not worth it, he is not worth it.) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if this were true, it wouldn't matter. It's Wikipedia's policy to include content only if it is "attributable to a reliable, published source". -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am going to continue to advocate wholesale deletion and re-starting of this article. Apparently I don't have the authority to tag it up as such, but I'm going to fight for this position and I know I'm not the only one that has it. (The fact that some of the others who have anti-white-privilege views have it for actual racist reasons should have no effect on the reality that there are solid anti-racist left-wingers who also oppose it and advocate multi-racial unity instead, many of whom I would also dare to say have done MORE anti-racist work than any white skin privilege advocate ever has.... but yeah, that last part is certainly POV on my end. ;) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Apparently I don't have the authority to tag it up as such" Nonsense. You have been told by three different editors that your POV complaint isn't a valid criterion for speedy deletion. Even if it were, any editor can remove a "speedy deletion" tag. If you are hell-bent on deleting the article, start a deletion discussion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Tags

The beginning of the page currently has two tags. It would be nice if we could resolve whatever issues the page has and remove them.

• The first tag says the "article's factual accuracy" is disputed. This suggests that there are statements in the article for which we need to find reliable published sources or that there are statements in the article that are at odds with reliable published sources. Could someone give examples? If so, could someone offer suggestions on where to find relevant sources?
• The second tag says the "article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards". This suggests that there are parts of the article that conflict with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Could someone give examples?

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Yes to all of this, in one simple answer: The article is decidedly POV towards a pro-WSP stance, a slant which has absolutely no place in a valid wikipedia article. One of the pillars of a valid Wikipedia article, as you will see if you look at the Wikipedia page on POV phenomena, is that it be as POV-neutral as possible. In this case, what that means is not that the pro-WSP views should be purged or that the anti-WSP views should be given unequal weight, but that both views must be equally represented, with equal weight that enables the reader to be able to take one position or the other based on reliable sources if s/he so chooses. An objective article, or indeed an objective anything, ABSOLUTELY MUST tell the story as it is and allow the reader to draw his or her own conclusions from reading all sides of the story. In fact, if nothing else, your subsequent assertion that the anti-WSP views are 'fringe' are a very convenient, to say nothing of very objectively inaccurate, way to ensure that the anti-WSP views are given an absolute minimum of voice. This behavior has to stop. No one is allowed to come in and make a page glorifying white skin privilege while counting one word ('theory') and a couple lines ('criticism') as evidence that the article is "OK but needs improvement." Plus, if you refuse to take it from me, just look at the discussion page! It's been nominated for deletion NOT by me, three times already. There are dozens and dozens of angry posts about the obvious vast POV of this article. Sure, some of them are from racist fucknuts or at least racists who aren't aware that they are making racist arguments in order to debunk white skin privilege, but you both take liberties to sort of assume that all criticism of WSP is "racist" -- which is itself a white skin privilege view.' Look at it this way -- it's impossible to defend any ideology neutrally by incorporating perspectives from that ideology into something that's supposed to be objective. My communism certainly falls within that, as does capitalism, as does 'white skin privilege.' And if all you can use to support WSP is evidence that corroborates it, rather than objective evidence that might point to it, you haven't even attempted objectivity, and you've shown no interest in doing so. That's not encyclopedic and it's not professional and actually it's unacceptable behavior for an article. You're going to continue to be opposed for your behavior here. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you help me out here? You say that "both views must be equally represented, with equal weight". Because these views aren't given equal weight in reputable sources, I'm not sure how we can go about this without violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which says, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" (emphasis mine). As much as I would like to include information about a leftist critique of the view that white privilege exists, no one has yet provided a single reliable source to justify doing so, much less justify giving it equal weight with the view for which we have several proper citations. Do you have reliable sources I don't know about? If so, please point us to them.

One of the consequences of Wikipedia's policy is that, for better or for worse, when the scholars who support a viewpoint are few or none, the article can only take insights from scholars who have the opposing view. So the article on evolution only admits sources who agree that evolution has occurred. (And, yes, I know you're not a right-winger. The point of similarity here concerns reliable sources -- not politics.) This isn't about what I believe or what you believe. If 100% of scholars were communists, we'd have to exclude commentary from people who oppose the communist worldview. There are points I would like to make in some of the articles on my watch list, but I don't get to, because to do so would be to give a viewpoint held by a minority of scholars undue weight.

It looks to me like you haven't given any specific examples of this articles' shortcomings regarding factual accuracy or manual of style. If I'm wrong, would you point out to me where you did? If I see neither examples nor relevant sources to back accusations of inaccuracy, I'll take this as a concession that the tags are misleading and must be removed.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that only scholerly sourcs could be used in Wiki articles, could you please point out that rule so I can read it and confirm your statment.Slatersteven (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see what Wikipedia has to say about verifiable reliable sources and the need to avoid original research. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have and can only find rferance to scholers when dealing with self published sourcs. It makes it clear that non-accademic sources may be used. So I would ask you tpo please provide the quoted rules as I am missing something.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You're technically right. I was generalizing. There are exceptions, but they're not of the sort that are likely to have any bearing on this article. And this article is what we should be using this page for. Do you have any suggestions on how we can improve it? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've removed the phrase and other colored groups from the article, because the study of Powell, et. al. does not mention other people of color. Please also take care to note that in the US colored is offensive when used to describe people or groups of people. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Did I put that in? At any rate, I'm sure you are right. Becritical (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

beginning some cleanup

I'll note changes I make as I go along:

Overview

I've made some revisions to clarify things. there was a shift from the claim that 'whites who are confronted with privileges make statements that concur with racists statements' to the assertion that this represents *actual* racism, which I don't believe is consistent with the claims made in the research. if it is, you'll need some sourcing to show how that logical gap is bridged.

also, the last half of the second paragraph doesn't belong in the overview (it's really a detailed discussion of this piece of research, not part of the overview of the topic). I'll move that later when I figure out where it ought to live. --Ludwigs2 23:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

History

I've flagged one phrase for clarification: "The theory of White privilege in America may be seen as having its roots in the system of legalized discrimination that existed for much of American history." theories do not have their roots in discrimination. privilege may have its roots in discrimination, or the theory may have its roots in studies of discrimination. which is intended here? probably best to make a direct quote from the author in reference 9.

also, I've moved reference 14 (tatum) to the end of the previous paragraph, but I don't know if that was correct. it was floating loose when I found it. can someone check what that reference is supposed to attach to, please? --Ludwigs2 23:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wealth

I've tagged this section as PoV. Basically, it presents what I assume are theoretical claims as though they were factual statements. need to reorganize this while section as a description of theoretical claims.

Justice

while the claims made in this section seems to be correct, there is no direct tie-in to the theory of White Privilege. Please provide some kind of source that makes a scholarly claim in this regard . --Ludwigs2 23:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

general

gotta take a break for a while, but in general large segments of this article need to be rewritten to to refocus on scholarship. often this is as simple as taking a phrase like "Racialized employment networks are yet another facet of employment which benefit whites at the expense of blacks" and rephrasing it as "According to Royster, racialized employment networks are yet another facet of employment which benefit whites at the expense of blacks." I'll go through and do it myself over time, but if someone more involved with the article wants to get right at it... --Ludwigs2 23:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, thank you for coming to contribute to the article. I appreciate your constructive criticism and your specific examples of improvements that could be made. So far I have no major objections to anything you've done (though admittedly I've only given it a rather quick look). However, I would like to see you expand on why you marked text in the overview with dubious and clarification needed. The statements seem clear to me, and they have citations, so I'm not sure what the issues are.

Over all the edits look good. Thanks again for all your hard work!

--Marie Paradox (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

no problem. they may be resolvable with simple rewrites, but I was confused about what they meant.

• Dan J. Pence and J. Arthur Fields suggest that resistance to the idea of white privilege stems from a tendency of whites to see inequality as a black or Latino issue. White reactions to such critiques include a continuum ranging from theoretical and academic discourse, artistic expression, activism, hostility, and a "wall of silence."

  This sentence seems to imply that a bit of academic research by Pence and Fields (and a few unspecified others) is causing some kind of reaction in "whites" (broadly put), a reaction which takes the form of... well, just about everything. On one side, I don't think whoever penned this really meant to imply that the academic research was the cause of this reaction, and on the other side, I find it hard to swallow that 'reactions' in areas as diverse as academic writing, social activism, and artistic expression are all motivated by the same thing in the same way. not to mention the category shift: hostility and "wall of silence" don't fit well with the first three or with each other (and are not particularly clear phrases in any case). I'm just not sure what was intended here, and I can't make sense of what was written.

• A study published by Branscombe et al. found that thinking about the benefits gained from a privileged group membership can threaten social identity and evoke justification of status differences between the ingroup and a disadvantaged group.

  This is unclear: who is thinking about the benefits gained? in what context are they thinking about this? what are the implied ramifications? my guess is that this is a laboratory experiment in which a number of subjects produced unfortunate justifications when they were pushed on the question of their privileges, but the sentence as written seems to be implying that this is an established effect in people at large (not a laboratory result). If Branscombe et al make extensions of their research to the greater political world then we can quote them on it; if they don't then this this statement needs to be clarified and revised. --Ludwigs2 07:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor. I'll see if I can fix these when I have the time. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What is a seamonkey?

The [[1]] does not appear to work. So can someoone else check this source.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the source for "The absence of racism-Definitions of privilege also include not experiencing racism (the absence of racism) as a privilege" which looks like personal space for unpublished college work. Now deleted.Cathar11 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the verification.Slatersteven (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reinserted the material. If you look up the piece on Google Scholar, you'll see not only that the piece has been published but that it's been cited 941 times. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reservations

"Theorists differentiate it from racism or prejudice because, they say, a person who may benefit from white privilege is not necessarily racist or prejudiced and may be unaware of having any privileges reserved only for whites." I thinik this needs re=wording as it seems from the artciel that most of the material is about the fact that the advantages of being white produce unintended (or at least not legaly reserved) advantage by stint of birth, not actual direct action, the wording implies this is diliberate policiy.Slatersteven (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I maintain my position (respectfully this time) that this article absolutely must be virulently edited by a new crop of editors with the goal of achieving NPOV. In the process, we will probably only make the article minimally-POV rather than NPOV. But that's okay. It just has a long way to go to even begin to not be blatantly POV at this present stage. I am glad I posted this article over on the POV message-board and I encourage everyone to keep the discussion active and vibrant. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Basic point of view dispute criteria.

I should have paid more attention to Paradox's and Shabazz's calls for a verifiable basis upon which to initiate an article-wide POV-based challenge. Since I decided to actually look this time, which I really should have done initially, I uncovered the following segment taken directly, verbatim, from the "What Is A POV Dispute" wikipedia policy page, and subsequently found that this article satisfies ALL but one (and the one is very minor) of those criteria very overtly and bluntly (even I was surprised at how completely it does so).

That section reads as follows, with my article-specific notations after each point.

• The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see Wikipedia:POV) The article, by the very nature of how it is laid out and reads at the present time, clearly does this.

• While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased. The article does this, too, in particular by relegating opposition to the concept to a very shortly-written, concentrated section in the middle of the article, where not everyone will read it. Additionally, the fact that it is a separate section rather than language integral to the article has the effect, intentional or not, of minimizing critical views into insignificance. Finally, even the language that does exist in that Criticism section tends to be unsourced, poorly sourced, or weighted decisively towards anti-WSP views that have a right-wing and/or racist basis — meaning that such criticisms are likely to be dismissed out of hand by those who do not have racist views.

• Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance). Point #2 touches on this.

• The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another. In this article's case, it is clear that using the history of racism, particularly United States racism, as the basis for this article's 'proof' that white skin privilege exists is a very useful tool for those who constructed it this way, be they more recent editors or past ones (I don't know who originally did it). By using the genuinely irrefutable facts of actually-existing systemic racism as the basis for WSP's argument that "all whites benefit from racism", they run less risk of having the theory challenged because they have actually grafted on the history of a legitimate phenomenon to support the conjectures from something not nearly universally accepted by either academics or the general public. That kind of behavior is unacceptable in academic circles.

• The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view. It does, but since the title is meant to describe what white skin privilege, the term, means, that specifically seems to be OK in this instance. (This point is the "but one" of the "all but one" thing I said in the first line of this message.)

• A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives. Certainly enough of that happening here given the above.

• The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.

Let me clarify something as both a budding journalist in my personal life and as a longtime Wikipedia contributor. To my mind, it is not that those editing the article most recently — the ones who have made and maintained the problems detailed — necessarily have a responsibility to be neutral in their own viewpoints. In fact, it is usually those with a given political viewpoint that are the most adept at editing pages on those political viewpoints (e.g., communists editing communist pages, capitalists editing capitalist pages, irish nationalists editing irish nationalist pages, black nationalists editing black nationalist pages etc.) precisely because they have the most experience with those views and know the most about them. However, even given that general reality, a person with a particular view must still refrain from POV-pushing. An encyclopedic article, like anything objective (e.g. genuine journalism), is supposed to, essentially, 'tell all sides of the issue and then let the reader decide what to do with that information. White Skin Privilege is not evolution, and objections to the theory are not creationism. Any attempt to elevate the status of WSP to evolution's level and to demote criticism of it to creationism's level is hyperbole, and in the face of being hyperbolic actually weakens the case for WSP as a theory — because its defenders would not have to do such things if WSP were so able to stand up on its own as its proponents claim.

• Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms. A little tough to know what this point means, so we've got two interpretive options: either it's asking if critical views are compared as persuasively as any other views expressed, which they aren't; or, alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive-towards-the-dominant-view terms, which they are. So any way you slice it, the article just does not measure up.

Thanks all; I just wanted to go through this methodically. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz, I appreciate your tone. I'm looking forward to working with you more on this article.

I'm not going to say a lot about this, because it's my experience that disputes that mention no specifics only end up contributing to editors' feeling exhausted. I'll just say a couple of things:

• Your second point leaves me with the impression that you feel we need to give space to opposing viewpoints beyond what is required in proportion to published sources, but this isn't what the page on NPOV says. I'm certainly open to the possibility that there are radical leftist critiques of the views of, say, McIntosh -- enough to warrant mention in the article -- but for that we need sources. The right-wing critiques aren't listed to make all criticism look bad -- they're here because we have to acknowledge that the critiques come from people with relevant credentials. I noticed on the talk page you were entertaining the idea of talking to some of your friends in academia. That might not be a bad idea.

• I think there's merit to the claim that this article could be presented in a less POV manner -- or at the very least that making some changes wouldn't hurt. I recommend following Ludwigs2's lead, both as he edits the page and makes specific criticisms here. Even if the only immediate result is that a few things get changed, that's still an improvement. "Every journey begins with a single step," and all that.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2's lead should indeed be followed, as well as that of any other new editors that come in as a result of the article being posted over on the POV discussion-page. Perhaps I underestimated you, Paradox. I had been thinking you and Shabazz were here to keep the article that 'certain slant'. I might have been wrong. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Southland

is http://www.uusouthland.org noted for its editorial control, is it in fact RS? It woould be better to use another source for the article..Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

McIntosh is the source. southland.org just happens to be one of the many places on the web that hosts a copy. I imagine the paper was originally included here due to McIntosh's credentials and the fact that one can't step two centimeters into discussions about white privilege without hearing mention of the paper. If you think it would reflect better on Wikipedia to point to one of the more prestigious institutions that hosts the paper, I won't object if you scan Google Scholar and substitute a link you've found for the link here. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I shouold have made my slef clearer. Is there a better source for Ms McIntosh's article? Also I have having trouble finding the passage being sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you end up seeing two responses to this. I thought I'd replied already, but my post isn't showing. Moving on to the matter at hand . . .

• List of Links to McIntosh's Article
• List of articles that have cited it

We could cite the article as it appears in Race, class, and gender. We could even link to the Google preview, if you'd find that more acceptable. (This hadn't originally occurred to me, because I assumed that pages would be missing from the preview, but in this case the pages are all there.) -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Paradox, may I please gently remind you that this is going to be a collaborative effort, and yet you still seem to be speaking as if you are the article's sole contributor/editor. Please lighten up. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also there appears to be no mention of the claim that "Definitions of privilege also include not experiencing racism (the absence of racism) as a privilege", but i could be missing it, could you past the text that backs this up here please?Slatersteven (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

From the end of the second paragraph: "As a white person, I realized I had been taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage." -- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That s not what the artcile says. The source does not support the claim that "Definitions of privilege also include not experiencing racism (the absence of racism) as a privilege" It says nothing about rascism not beinig experianced by whites, it says that she enjoys advantages that non-whites do not enjoy.Slatersteven (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

After giving this more thought I've decided to rescind my objections to the removal of the line. It's the sort of line that would work better in the lead, in the overview, or in a summary statement. What's more, it's bad stylistically to have a subsection that consists of only one sentence, and it's unclear at best. (Do the editors mean that definitions of privilege include not experiencing racism or definitions of white privilege specifically?) In short if anyone wants to remove the line, I won't object, and if anyone wants to reinsert a line like this, I'd ask them to take these things into consideration. Also, it would still be nice to have a reference to McIntosh somewhere in the article. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about one of the most widely-cited verifiable reliable sources relevant to the article that there is, so it's not something that should be removed from the article without a lot of discussion. If my intentions are unclear let me say explicitly that if the objection is to the location of the article, then I'd have absolutely no objections to someone's linking to any one of the other 203 places it can be found. If you have any other ideas on how I can meet you or Slatersteven in the middle, please let me know. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

it does not mater how many timies a source is mentioned, if it does not say what is attributed to it.Slatersteven (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yuy might want to look for anotehr source. I am sure I have sen a comment about this, but not in this source. But for the life of me I can't remeber where.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

POV and Oslick, Cook, and Guipe

I'm going to be removing this sentence from the lead: "However, research has demonstrated that refocusing in this way may create unintentionally racist attitudes among whites." The statement has at least three problems: (1) However is a word to avoid, (2) the only thing resembling support for this claim in the entry is in the section that cites Oslick, Cook, and Guipe, and neither the entry nor the cited piece suggests that anything qualifying as research has been done, and (3) the cited paper doesn't seem to have been written by relevant authorities. (Of the three names only Cook gets Google Scholar results, and I'm not sure any of these are the same author.) The last point calls into question how we can justify having the sections Group Guilt and Maintaining stereotypes. I believe these were good faith edits, so there must be evidence out there somewhere, but if time passes and I don't see any links to reliable sources, I or someone else will have to delete the sections. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

feel free. I was just reorganizing and clarifying, so it's entirely possible I goofed things up. no worries. --Ludwigs2 00:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you be bold and just take out everything without decent sourcing? Becritical (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to note...

While I'm not quite "be bold" enough to do it myself, the NPOV problems with this article hit me like a brick in the head when I happened upon it. I'm glad to see such good discussion here, on the talk page, by dedicated wikipedians such as you guys. Thanks, keep up the hard work! 71.8.193.122 (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is an embarrassment to thought

Where do you even begin?