Talk:White privilege/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

2601:181:402:23C0:40E7:97ED:2B7:9F4B (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The term white privilege is often insulting and degrading to Caucasian individuals. The term has unfortunately be used to intentionally diminish accomplishments of Caucasian’s; many of whom overcame poverty, physical, sexual, and emotion abuse in childhood. The term “White Privilege” is racist in itself. The term implies that all caucasians enjoy privilege based on skin color. There are no scientific studies with control groups conducted specifically to substantiate this claim. There are look back studies which produce statistics in raw numbers but don’t these are not controlled studies.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also see WP:NOTFORUM Cannolis (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

The title of this page should be change from white previlege to majority previlege. As people with white skin do not have previlege in places dominantes by other majorities such as china india etc. Also calling it white privilege is altogether biased in itself 115.188.160.148 (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This page is specifically about white privilege. Titling it otherwise would be inaccurate. Bac0nf (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. A consensus would need to be established before such a significant page move can be made. As Bac0nf already pointed out, that is unlikely to happen due to the current title accurately reflecting the present content of the article. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 07:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

The title should be changed from "White Previlege" to "White Privilege (United States)" as white privilege only happens in countries were the majority are white or if European descent like the US. White privilege doesnt happen everywhere in the world and by labeling simply white privilege is a blank statement that casts over all white people no matter what country. 115.188.160.148 (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It is not limited to the US (e.g. UK), so no. If you're proposing a move request, I think it has little chance of succeeeding. El_C 22:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

some academics, having studied white privilege undisturbed for decades, have been surprised by the seemingly sudden hostility from not just right-wing but centrists critics since approximately 2014.[14] 2601:1C1:C201:80B0:D97F:ACE6:ABA8:DDF1 (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

white privilege is a term used to invoke white guilt, even in those that have never been bigoted.

If this site states that I have the right to adjust information on pages, then I should be able to adjust this page. that's misinformation. BilboBagginz360 (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC) — BilboBagginz360 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(soapbox alert) you know I almost felt that a month ago. Then I was forced to face up to the fact that even thought (In my youth) I was stooped on sus maybe twice A year I never feared the interaction might lead to my death.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, "on suss" - haven't heard that in many a year! Guy (help!) 16:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not been pulled up on it for years (yes by the way if I saw the Peelers I would assume they were going to pull me up).Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I have been apprehended by the rozzers on exactly four occasions. Two during my mis-spent youth, then two traffic stops, about 5 years apart. Guy (help!) 21:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@BilboBagginz360:, normally I would have closed this as a forum violation, but since you are a brand-new user, I'll just say, "Welcome!" and let you know, that Talk pages on Wikipedia, like this one, are dedicated to discussions about how to improve this article. They are not here to register complaints about the article, or have debates about the article topic, or to give ones opinions about the topic. If you have some concrete thoughts about how to improve this article, you're welcome to add them. Mathglot (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

BilboBagginz360 you have the right to work collaboratively with other editors on articles. This means discussing changes with other involved editors. The WP:ONUS is on the editor proposing the changes to find a WP:CONSENSUS using WP:RS with proper WP:WEIGHT.   // Timothy :: talk  11:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Blatant bias against critics

The paragraph I deleted on June 19 displays an incredible amount of bias. It insinuates that criticism of the topic at hand stems from “misunderstanding” and feelings of “defensiveness” by white people. It also implies that the existence of white privilege is unanimously agreed upon by academics, which it is not, and that all hostility and criticism from the right-wing are products of misinterpretation by uneducated non-academics. This is not neutral content whatsoever, and the entire paragraph needs to either be revised in a way that doesn’t attempt to ridicule critics of this heavily disputed subject, or be completely removed. Bac0nf (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it as blatant bias, as it is serving the role of summarizing the article body. After looking at the January 2016 contribution which introduced the paragraph in question, brought by biochemist and good-faith contributor Yanping Nora Soong, it appears that the paragraph was made more general since then, with the source names removed, to give a wider stance to the opinions expressed.

If you have evidence to the contrary, that the topic of white privilege is not now eliciting defensiveness from right-wing critics, then please cite it. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bac0nf, could you provide a source for your objection? Thanks. At that time, I summarized authoritative points of view drawn from reliable sources. I hope you can assume good faith. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Our sources are not supposed to be neutral. Per Biased or opinionated sources:

• "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
• Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". "Dimadick (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I dont think the issue here is the use of a biased reference. Its using a biased reference to summarize criticism of the article's topic in a biased way. Yes we all assume good faith, just as we all insist we dont edit wiki articles to push personal agenda. I know I don't do that and have never seen anyone on wiki doing it either. Glad thats out of the way. Batvette (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible trolling from off-wiki

I added page views to the header above, to help detect possible sudden changes in viewership, to aid analysis of how that may correlate with discussions initiated here. I count twelve sections above this one, most coming in around the time of the early June spike (where it reached #150 in top views), or not too long thereafter. It seems to me, this may be due to a sudden influx from off-wiki that mentions this article. I notice that some of the anon users have a handful of edits, and seem to start around the same time. Searching around, I found this Medium article on white privilege published June 1, 2020, which contains a link to this article. (Medium.com is an SPS; the piece is a yawn; don't waste your time.) Not sure if anything special needs to be done with these discussions even if the events are related, but I thought it was worth pointing out. (If anyone knows how to get Talk page page views separately from the mainspace page views, that could be helpful here.) Adding @Doug Weller, Objective3000, JzG, NightHeron, and SPECIFICO: Isn't there a Template about this someplace, warning about possible off-wiki spam? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Talk page views spiked on 28 May and 16 June, trailing off thereafter. Mathglot (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Where is a section on critcism?

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

---

Its not as if there isnt any. https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2019/no-need-to-plead-guilty/ Batvette (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this section of that site, which is not labelled as satire or parody, I have to question how reliable that source is. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The website's about page doesn't fill me with confidence, and a pearl-clutching political gossip column by Toby Young is pretty much never going to be helpful for any article.

As the note at the top of the talk page suggests, this is one of those things that's been discussed dozens of times already. We had at least one RFC for it a while ago, and consensus is usually against WP:CSECTIONs anyway. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this tban still in effect? [1], [2]. If it is, does it cover this article?   // Timothy :: talk  23:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Batvette: best case scenario here is that you are tiptoeing on a very slippery and blurry line. While this article touches on how the concept affects the world, it does particularly concern American politics (what with the reappearance of openly racist rhetoric taking infecting certain political power structures). I recommend not replying to this, not posting here again, and not editing this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism sections are frowned upon. Any cited, legitimate criticism can be inserted into the article's prose at the appropriate location. And, as others have pointed out, this definitely fits into your topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Areas of Improvement

Hi, having participated in conversations here before and reviewing current ones, as well as the page itself, I seek to create a better entry and am soliciting your opinions. I will start, please comment, debate and add points. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• US-centric. The article and most of its sources speak - unironically - about white privilege as though it is a universal phenomena, or is replicated exactly in different parts of the world. Understanding the term and how it originates within the context of the USA is essential. Of course it exists in other places, but in different ways and that is addressed in part by the Global examples, but this doesn't place it firmly in the historical, colonial processes unique to the USA. Australia and New Zealand are good comparisons, and to some extent South Africa, because of similar colonial histories, but applying it to countries in Europe where nation stemmed directly from ancient ethnicity, like most other countries in the world, does little to shed light on privileges that are far more specific and localised. Thinking of the anti-Polish reaction in the UK for example. White Privilege offers nothing to explain this, although privilege theory in general would.
• Too long. The article is unclear and not concise. There are also far too many sub categories tangentially explaining related theories and proposing historical causes. Again that is a reflection of the sources, but to do a good job here on Wikipedia, we should fix this.
• Too academic. Most of the sources are not 2nd hand mainstream ones, but rather from academia. I think the result is a number of speculative interpretations of the theory are included, instead of focusing on what are the commonly agreed definitions.
• Limited connection to other aspects privilege theories... It needs to be presented as more broadly as part of social theory and how White Privilege is one type.
• Criticism. I still believe the page would benefit from including objectively the criticism – whether you agree with it or not.
• Images. Very few of the images demonstrate points clearly directly or exclusively relating to White Privilege or improve understanding of the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesperian Nguyen (talk • contribs) 20:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hesperian Nguyen: Just a few comments. First, if you make specific suggestions for removals and well-sourced additions, then there'll be something concrete to discuss. For example, if you know of sources that discuss how white privilege manifests itself in other countries besides the US, that would help make the article truly global in scope. Second, please be aware that there's a consensus of editors that white privilege should be treated as a phenomenon that indisputably exists, not as merely a theory or concept (see the RfC in this talk page archive [3]). Unfortunately, some editors persist in making edits or talk page proposals that reject this consensus. The argument some editors have made against the existence of white privilege usually takes the form: there are situations where there's no white privilege, therefore there's no such thing as white privilege; and this is illogical. Third, while the article should not give a WP:FALSEBALANCE by including the fringe criticism that white privilege doesn't exist, it is reasonable to include well-sourced criticisms of the way white privilege has been interpreted and used to frame issues of racism. For example, I believe that the section White privilege#White privilege pedagogy should include the mainstream critics of that pedagogical approach. Last December I tried to do this (see [4]), but those criticisms were almost entirely reverted (and the sentence that remains citing Blum is unclear and unexplained --- his criticisms were much more extensive than what's indicated there). So I agree with you that there's room for improvement in this article, but of course based on mainstream RS. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Hi, I will look at your examples shortly, but here's a few things: My approach here is to attempt to find some agreement on areas of improvement before making specific proposals. Second, I think the theory vs fact thing is a semantic issue, I fall back on the use of theory in science, but I think I get where the consensus may have arisen from. I refer to [5] as an example. Perhaps that can help guide us in discussing and defining what we might disagree on? Third, I think the fringe theory aspect is very important – and I will just say that personally I am not here to undermine the page, I genuinely want to make it better and easier to understand – and that due to the popular newness, numerous contributions, and academic nature of it and source material... that it is simply not a phrase that has an exact definition, yet. In fact I think there is widespread misunderstandings of it. I see fringe theories in the positive application of the term as well. To be balanced we need to strive to focus on common understandings and not explore every potential facet. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Each of the above bullet-points is highly controversial. The first one is slightly more subtle, but is especially alarming. The notion that "nation stemmed directly from ancient ethnicity" is anachronistic, and, well, wrong. It is, however, a common talking point among fringe sources, because it supports the idea of ethnic nationalism. Clearly, presenting ethnic nationalism as a counterpoint to white privilege is totally inappropriate for countless reasons. Grayfell (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: So you think my summary of the formation of non former colonial nations is wrong. How would you describe that process? Can you acknowledge it was a different process than in the Americas for example? And more importantly, let's speak to the bullet point... US-centricity. What can we do to improve the article so that it isn't a solipsistic pronouncement to the rest of the world from the USA? Something btw Wikipedia English in general could vastly improve on. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Your summary was simplistic in the extreme, and this isn't the place to discuss the origins of nationalism. At best, this list was a misguided start because you've lumped together many very different points. Since this list doesn't have agreement, this is not a starting point. If you want to propose changes, propose specific changes. Otherwise, you do not have any special privilege to choose which bullet point gets discussed, nor how it is discussed. Grayfell (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that the European and Asian nations developed along the lines of ethno-nationalism, I'm not saying this is a good thing, but rather a thing that is different than the USA. I'm saying that the origins of nations, which includes colonialism, is relevant in the formation of identity, racism, and privilege. I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I see no violation in proposing general topics of investigation to improve the page, perhaps it is a new tack, so I apologize for the discomfort, and... If it is not an effective strategy, then so be it, no one needs to do anything. You are not obligated btw to derail other's attempts on the Talk Page to well... talk about the page. If you don't have suggestions to improve the page, then feel free to stand aside. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, these talking points are common among ethnic nationalists. This should not go unaddressed, in part because of the past history of this talk page. Since you did not lay any "rails" to begin with, you're in no position to lecture others about derailing, and attributing my comments to "discomfort" is itself a pretty good example of derailing anyway. Grayfell (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be directly familiar with what ethno-nationalist talk about. Again, feel free to walk away from this section until you're ready to address "Areas of Improvement" to the page in some form. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic_groups_in_Europe#European_ethnic_groups_by_sovereign_state and the work of Anthony_D._Smith are examples of non fringe accounts of the ethnic formation of nations – again mainly not former colonies – than can account for, imo, additional layers of exclusion, systemic oppression, and privilege that vary distinctly from the USA. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hesperian Nguyen, your logical fallacy is: begging the question. You assume that, with the benefit of your thousand edits, you have insight into "improvements" that the vastly more experienced editors of this highly contentious and much debated article, have somehow failed to think of.

What you're actually advocating is false balance. No thanks. Guy (help!) 14:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in some territorial debate or one about edit counts. My belief is that I offer insight is based on the fact that I am an English speaker that does not live in the USA (nor Great Britain), and offer a more international perspective. So instead of shutting down an honest to god attempt to look for ways to improve the entry, let's just not get defensive and take it at face-value (Assume_good_faith). I really don't need suspicions shoved down my throat nor words put in my mouth. If you think the article is in great shape, just say so and move on. <3 Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is biased. If critical race theory and whiteness are treated as a fact why aren't countless sociological studies published about African Americans and asians etc treated as fact too? Because they are inherently racist and are blanket terms that categorize people with vastly different experiences into a single group. Also intersectionality states people's advantages and disadvantages can be categorized infinitely. So then why is race held up as the most important category why dont we have a page on attractive privilege or IQ privilege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.160.148 (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Critical race theory is not treated as a fact, it's merely used to analyze white privilege. Whiteness is a "fact" to the extent that society treats it as a fact, which is why it's a social construct. Nowhere is anyone saying that white privilege is "the most important" anything. Grayfell (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There is already a bias banner on the page, so maybe suggest how to improve that situation? Or are you saying that the article needs to change all of the language relating to the theory/fact issue? Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The "bias banner" has been removed, for good reason. The consensus of editors is that there's nothing biased about acknowledging that white privilege is a phenomenon that indisputably exists. There may still be some instances of unbalanced coverage in the individual sections, but that doesn't justify a template for the whole article. You'll make more progress in achieving your objectives if you make a series of small, specific suggestions, rather than pronouncing that the whole article needs to be rewritten. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I agree, I don't think the whole page is biased, I'm only acknowledging to the anonymous comment above that this field of potential improvement has already been flagged. The standout issues for me are that the page is truly uneven in writing, lacks concision, and includes repetitive and occasional tangential information. I look to related pages like Social_privilege or Positive_stereotype that are better encyclopedic entries. I'm sorry if you understood my section as calling for an outright nuke or rewrite of the whole page. I find it easier to determine a problem area, to focus on that single issue, and to make changes based on that... And that could be in terms of a focus on language relating to US-centricity/US Exceptionalism, or just sourcing better images. As I've explained above, if there is no support for this tactic, I will drop it. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hesperian Nguyen, giving undue weight to fringe views is not "potential improvement". Neither is feeding obvious trolls. Guy (help!) 14:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Bias is a fringe view? Wikipedia is full of examples of political bias, it's an endemic problem with the platform itself. If someone can make a case for it, certainly they can be heard out on the talk page. Based on the above anonymous comment, I doubt that will happen, but I believe in giving people a chance. Please point me to the special rules that apply to this talk page so I can familiarize myself with the double standard and movement of goalposts. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hesperian Nguyen: It's already been explained that the view that white privilege is only a theory is a fringe view that's been rejected by consensus of editors. Similarly, the view that this article is completely biased because it accepts white privilege as an indisputable fact is also a fringe view. Your general criticisms of Wikipedia are out of place here, per WP:NOTFORUM. Nor is it constructive to make accusations against other editors, such as "double standard" or "movement of goalposts." If you proceed from an attitude of respect toward other editors, you'll get more accomplished. I think you'll find that other editors are open to specific, well-sourced suggestions for added material, and also for specific suggestions about where the writing can be improved or made more concise. NightHeron (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

In 24 hours I've been accused of a number of viewpoints I've never espoused and told not to discuss several things here, which include the way I make recommendations and now, for defending myself from bullying, which appears to be completely normalised on this talk page. I am understanding that the editors that watch this page are defensive and therefore uncomfortable with any criticism, or see all criticism as trolling racist attacks. However, I am not making any such counterproductive, outrageous, or fringe claims. I am trying to candidly assess what could be improved or made more consistent so that White Privilege can be understood more easily, better, and to more people. Something for all of us to think about instead of playing Wikipedia power games. Best Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

it’s beyond a little interesting that this talk page claims to “have to lock the page because of continual edits” in regards to a criticism section, while also claiming that a “consensus has been reached”. Even in the linked article about reaching a consensus, this clearly does not fit that criteria - it’s only the opinion of the few with the ability to lock. There are plenty of articles with *less* debate that list an opposing viewpoint (zoophilia, for example), which clearly makes this page a non-neutral stance.Hsox05 (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

We've heard all this before, so declaring that other people are "defensive and therefore uncomfortable with any criticism" is loaded and insulting. Instead of vaguely telling us what we should be thinking about, propose specific, actionable changes to the article based on policy and existing consensus. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

A consensus was manufactured by banning all opposition, and consistently attacking the previous consensus that held 'White Privilege' as a concept (not a fact) until you got the outcome you wanted. MWise12 (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

NY Times Article Quote

Per WP:FORUM, this is not a page to demand people change your mind. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From “Could Somebody Please Debunk This”: “But another reason some scientists avoid engaging on this topic, I came to understand, was that they do not have definitive answers about whether there are average differences in biological traits across populations. And they have increasingly powerful tools to try to detect how natural selection may have acted differently on the genes that contribute to assorted traits in various populations. What’s more, some believe substantial differences will be found. Others think it may not be feasible to ever entirely disentangle an immutable genetic contribution to a behavior from its specific cultural and environmental influences.” If there comes a time when the overwhelming evidence for racial differences in average rates of intelligence being heritable, and intelligence being entirely linked to genetic inheritance as physical traits are, it will forever disprove the lie of White privilege. I believe that this article should be changed to better suit the evidence that is already out there. All I want to do is ask: show me a link to the scientific consensus that White privilege describes a real phenomenon and is therefore a fact. If it is indeed a fact, I do not wish to be ignorant on this subject of the reasons why I should believe it to 100% be a fact? Show me proof that this is the scientific consensus. I vehemently disagree with the concept and find the concept to be deeply offensive. Did Cannon Hinnant benefit from it? 184.53.33.50 (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Your cherry-picking missed: “Yet all of them agree that there is no evidence that any differences which may be found will line up with the prejudices of white supremacists.” Read the article. It has 186 cites. And frankly, your Willie Hortonish, dog-whistle reference to Cannon Hinnant is extremely offensive. I suggest you strike it. O3000 (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources refuting White privilege

I’ve no doubt that The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883 Everyone should check out “The Myth of Systemic Police Racism” by Heather MacDonald and it should be required reading for all Americans. The concept that White people are much safer from the police and don’t incur systemic police racism is a huge argument for White privilege these days. From an economic standpoint, there’s this video on YouTube: “Debunking White Privilege: The Economic Reality”, by a person of color. I know that a YouTube video is not a reliable source, but I know he cited reliable sources in the video that can be used in the criticism section that fit Wikipedia’s reliable sources requirements. He uses factual sources and statistics that can be readily verified for the much-needed criticism section.

How could “White privilege” be a thing, economically speaking, when East Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans, and more, make a lot more money on average than White people? White privilege is not a fact, it is a concept, and in my opinion, a viciously anti-White concept.

184.53.33.50 (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• To the editor who called this a “forum” post, hokum. I included reliable sources such as The Wall Street Journal, and made suggestions for changing and improving the article on an effort to help build an encyclopedia. Your talk page reveals that you seem to have a history of questionable reverts, Mr. Knowles. 184.53.33.50 (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You have given no suggestion to improve the article. And the source you quote is an opinion piece, thus very unlikely/unsuitable to overturn all the other actually reliable sources in the article. The rest of your post seem to be rhetorical or forum-style questions. Mvbaron (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

But Heather MacDonald provided reliable statistics such as that fact that a Black man is 18.5x more likely to kill a police officer than an unarmed Black man is to be killed by a police officer. Did you know that only nine unarmed Black people were killed by the police in 2019 and all nine of those cases were less explicable than they would at first appear on a superficial level. My suggestion for improvement is a criticism section with included evidence against the will-o’-the-wisp called White privilege’s existence. The curiosity question about Ignatiev is probably irrelevant so I have removed it. 184.53.33.50 (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I will assume good faith here and that you are actually interested in bettering this article (phrases like "will-o’-the-wisp called White privilege" make it admittedly hard though): The problem with your piece is that it is an opinion piece, and therefore not immediately suitable for inclusion. (You realise that you probably will be able to find an opinion piece for about any opinion you want to include *somewhere* right? ) Heather Mac Donald is also no expert in the field, so her opinion does not hold much weight here. See: WP:RSOPINION Mvbaron (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess that will-o’-the-wisp is perhaps a better descriptor of systemic racism. But I do believe I recall reading that opinion pieces could be used as reliable sources at times. What does their deemed reliability depend upon? 184.53.33.50 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

We have an article on Heather MacDonald. She is a right-wing talking head who works for a think tank and believes that there's nothing wrong with the way police interact with Black people.

Amazingly, a white woman doesn't understand the systematic oppression of Black people. Who'd have thought it.

A politically motivated op-ed by someone with no relevant credentials in a paper that also embraces climate change denialism does not contradict the mountain of serious academic sources that establish the realty of white privilege. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: The race of an author is irrelevant to their reliability or notability. If you disagree, maybe you should propose an update WP:RS.

Notable right-wing views should be represented in this article, as should notable left-wing views. Right now, the article very narrowly focuses on views from Critical Race Theory, and largely ignores both left-wing and right-wing criticisms of CRT concepts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The reality of white privilege has already been discussed at length, and the discussion reached a consensus that white privilege is not merely a "concept" but a fact. However, there can be conflicting viewpoints on how extensive it is, how to analyze it, how to teach about it, etc. If you have scholarly RS (not opinion pieces) that dispute the analyses that are currently in the article, then by all means tell us about them. NightHeron (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I strenuously disagree with the implicit assertion that we should put our thumb on the scale to ensure that the article presents a balance between "American right-wing talking heads in the media" and "American left-wing talking heads in the media" (which is what you're actually saying if you're arguing for the inclusion of that opinion piece.) That is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. We should present all noteworthy and significant points of view by experts in the field, in accordance with their representation among high-quality sources, but random grindy culture-war opinion pieces contribute nothing and are WP:UNDUE when not written by an expert in the field. It would be particularly undue (and completely unacceptable) to use opinion-pieces by non-experts to critique and respond to peer-reviewed papers by academic experts in the field. --Aquillion (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Two cites that are not acceptable sources were provided. Anything else? O3000 (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, you have been banging on about CRT since forever, but have spectacularly failed to persuade anyone else of your position. And yes, the race of a white right-winger saying that there's no such thing as white privilege is directly relevant. If you think this article is overbalanced by left-wing talking heads, then let's get rid of all talking heads and leave the article based solely on academic discourse. The measure of a significant opinion is that it's discussed ins econdary sources. The only source provided here is primary. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This is an article about a CRT concept, which is why I frequently mention CRT. I do not think that left-wing views are over-represented in this article. The issue is that criticism of CRT - from both the left and the right - is under-represented. I also don't agree that an author's race is relevant to assessing their reliability, and I think that raising an author's race in order to dismiss them is inappropriate. I don't see any support for it in WP:RS policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

We've already settled that this is a social phenomenon which is also described by scholars in CRT. (It's not a topic created artificially by scholars.) Heather MacDonald's views should be thrown out any time they are brought up as supposedly reliable, not because she is white but because she is a white hate-monger. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

If the author's race is irrelevant, why do you mention it? The accusation of hate-mongering is more substantial, but her race is completely irrelevant to her reliability, and it's disturbing that you guys are focusing on it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thuce, you're disturbed -- we get it. But this article isn't going to be based on your feelings and after thousands of words, not a single editor has seen convincing arguemnts from you. Let's agree you're going to drop the stick now. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that criticism of CRT - from both the left and the right - is under-represented. Absolutely not. You must demonstrate that first by showing that such criticism exists in high-quality sources (ie. academic sources, writings by subject matter experts, or things of comparable quality.) The idea that every article needs axe-grindy, vapid thinkpieces from professional talking heads like MacDonald clogging the page is absurd. She has no credentials or expertise on the topic and (like most talking heads today) is employed as a professional firebrand whose job is to spin or feign whatever arbitrary position she feels is necessary to attract clicks and rally her side's troops for the issue of the day. Her opinion might be relevant on her own article, but it isn't relevant here, and presenting it as equivalent in weight to the numerous high-quality sources we have discussing the topic would be absurd. The feelings of talking heads are not automatically noteworthy (indeed, they are almost never noteworthy), and definitely cannot be included on article that have higher-quality sources. "Professional axe-grindy culture-war talking head asserts party line on topic related to her party line" isn't noteworthy or relevant; criticism of an academic concept must come from people with some sort of formal expertise within that topic area, or have significant coverage by WP:SECONDARY sources, in order to be included. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Carlstak (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, you keep saying that, and it keeps not being true. Just because a topic is discussed within a field, does not make it a product of that field. White privilege is what it is. CRT is just a way of thinking about it (and an excuse for racism denialists to pretend it doesn't exist, I guess). Guy (help! - typo?) 22:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"writings by subject matter experts" Per the policy on Scholarship: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." There is no need to reinvent policies on reliable sources, when the current ones already cover the topic. Dimadick (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

There’s been a lot of ad hominem against Mac Donald but zero attempts to refute the statistics she used. Because all Leftists know that the data (like in “The Bell Curve”) is inarguable and indubitably accurate. Outright stating that Heather being a White person makes her opinion “tainted” in some way (because of different lived experiences once can infer) is an odious sentiment and it proves that the exact opposite of “White privilege” is the case (what is real is White marginalization). I don’t believe that the group (who shall not be pointed out here) who developed the concept of “White privilege” did so with the best interests of European Americans in mind, let’s just say. That should never under any context or circumstances be posed as an argument on Wikipedia. The anti-White zeitgeist that pervades our society was never and I mean EVER about “equality”. I’ll ask once more: why are Mac Donald’s facts and statistics (which are incontrovertible, factual, and accurate) irrelevant to the discussion? 184.53.33.50 (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Because she's a non-expert being published in an opinion section, her reading and interpretation of those statistics just represents her personal feelings. Anyone can throw together a bunch of statistics that they feel support their "side" in an argument; we rely on someone's reputation as an expert, on secondary coverage, and on the fact-checking done by a high-quality WP:RS to ensure that their argument actually has weight and is well-grounded. She has none of those things and was published as opinion (which isn't usually fact-checked), so her personal feelings on the subject of white privilege have no weight, even if she presents what she says are statistics she feels support those opinions. People aren't arguing with her directly because that's not how we do things here - an expert published in a high-quality source which gets substantial secondary coverage would have to be covered here as well even if we feel they're wrong; but, conversely, a talking head with no expertise can't be covered, even if you feel she's right. --Aquillion (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"zero attempts to refute the statistics she used" We do not publish refutations of someone's talking points. We aim to publish reliably-sourced arguments according to the sources which make them. What makes you certain that the statistics she cited are either accurate or relevant to the topic? Lies, damned lies, and statistics tend to be used "to bolster weak arguments". Dimadick (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Do we want a TP header about this?

In regard to the umpteenth discussion about this, the Talk page header needs either a FAQ box to be added, or can anybody remember the name of that "perennial questions" Talk page banner template for stuff that keeps coming up over and over, or am I misremembering that? Note: I've set this off under it's own sub-header, so as not to interrupt the ongoing flow above. Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, add {{faq}} to the header and hit Edit. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Thanks, I know about FAQs (I should have linked it), but there's a "perennial issues" template—I think—which is more banner-like and less Q&A, which might work better here. Iirc, it says something about certain topics keep coming up over and over, and please check the Archives before posting it again. Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, {{Round in circles}}? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Ha, never saw that one before! Thanks; maybe I dreamt the whole thing. Mathglot (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, {{Warning Fascism left-wing}}? I was immediately thinking about this one, maybe you had that in mind as well? But it seems it is tailor-made to the particularly silly debate over yonder. --Mvbaron (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Mvbaron, I've never seen that one, but it's closer, because it has the verbiage about being "discussed numerous times", and "read the talk page archives". Maybe with those phrases, I can do better searches, now. The one I thought I remembered wasn't a startling color like this one, so maybe just the usual greenish or teal or whatever it is. Thanks very much for finding that one, and linking it! Mathglot (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, maybe {{Warning RS and OR}} would be appropriate? It's used on Talk:QAnon for similar reasons. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

'White Privilege' Is A Societal Theory/Concept Not Fact

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

---

Hello, just jumped on after noting that the article was written as fact as opposed to theory, this is completely unacceptable for an encyclopedia. I refer editors to this article by Cory Collins published on Tolerance.org, Collins expounds on the theory is some detail: What-is-white-privilege-really? . Seriously, Wikipedia will become a laughing stock if this article is left worded in such a manner, best wishes. Roland Of Yew (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_privilege#RFC. O3000 (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Roland Of Yew: Could you please summarize the article you linked for us? We can read it, but I don't think I'm seeing what you're seeing and I suspect the other editors won't either. The Collins article doesn't use the word "theory." Outside of one sentence noting that some white people (not used to being classified by their race and not understanding how much worse they could have it) get defensive at the term (the "concept that has fallen victim to its own connotations"), it does accept that the concept is describing a social reality where white people have "greater access to power and resources than people of color [in the same situation] do." Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure: Belief Roland Of Yew (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Roland Of Yew, I read that article. I agree with his contention that white privilege is "all of this, all at once". So it's a bit of a mystery why you made the change you did, which goes against the thrust of the article. He argues (convincingly) that white privilege is a thing. He also argues (convincingly) that we should explain it in a way that minimises cognitive dissonance for those who either don't see their lives as privileged, or are in denial of their own racism. Guy (help!) 12:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty gobsmacked, an article that concludes with suggestions as to what people can do to recognise their white privilege isn't considering white privilege is a fact? Doug Weller talk 13:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, motivated reasoning is a wonderful thing to behold. Guy (help!) 13:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering that the Tolerance article is the very first result when one Googles "White Privilege", I'm guessing that Roland, looking for confirmation of his bias, did just that and didn't read past the words "This idea of white privilege as unseen, unconscious advantages took hold. It became easy for people to interpret McIntosh's version of white privilege—fairly or not—as mostly a matter of cosmetics and inconvenience." After all, the very next paragraph treats the reality of white privilege as a given, as in "They overshadow the fact that white privilege is both a legacy and a cause of racism", so Roland apparently missed the actual meaning of those preceding words. Carlstak (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

And I'm a French model. O3000 (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Roland Of Yew: Could you explain how the article you cited supports your claim in the slightest? As I predicted, nobody seems to be able to read it the way you supposedly have. We wouldn't want anyone to become a laughing stock, after all. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not arguing against the concept I’m just stating a fact, that white privilege is a belief, supported by many people but still a Belief that does not belong on an encyclopaedia. Roland Of Yew (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a rather large difference between faith and hard evidence based conclusion. You can claim anything, including existence itself, is just a belief. Kinda easy way to dismiss that which one doesn't like. O3000 (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• In other words, @Roland Of Yew: you didn't read the article you cited at all. That's assuming the good faith that you hadn't deliberately refused the responsibility to educate yourself on a topic which you are woefully ignorant, in a way that enables and reinforces white supremacist gaslighting to cover up crimes against black people. I would like to believe that you've actually got enough of a heart and brain that to look at that article and acknowledge that black people are treated far differently from (generally worse than) white people. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is biased. If critical race theory and whiteness are treated as a fact why arent countless sociological studies published about African Americans and asians etc treated as fact too? Because they are inherently racist and are blanket terms that categorize people with vastly different experiences into a single group. Also intersectionality states people's advantages and disadvantages can be categorized infinitely. So then why is race held up as the most important category why dont we have a page on attractive privilege or IQ privilege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.160.148 (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

White privilege is an academic theory. One that stems from Marxist thought and has evolved into what we today call "Critical theory." This article is biased in its current form. In order to resolve this issue, it needs to elaborate the many alternative sociological theories that discredit critical theory, including biological arguments, as well as different historical interpretations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:62A0:1590:851D:F4CB:593B:B126 (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Since you singled it out for special mention above, would you explain what you mean by "including biological arguments" with some examples?   // Timothy :: talk  01:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I have a feeling they're tied to the "different historical interpretations." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(insert shockeed face)   // Timothy :: talk  01:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed the discussion was stagnant, let's get it going again. This is certainly not to be seen as a fact, as the first paper about it was a methodological mess. It is better to see it as an analysis tool. It is used as such after all. Because of [WP:NPOV] and the fact that there is apparent disagreement in the society (and relevant scholars) about this concept, it shouldn't be viewed as fact.Feynstein (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, I've found one example of such definition in litterature. From a non-white MD, if that's of any relevance. I suggest it should be defined as such: "White privilege is a long-standing debated concept..." [6] Feynstein (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

And, in addition to my two comments above, white privilege is a non-falsifiable concept in itself, because of its post-modern origins. It should certainly not be regarded as a fact. Feynstein (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

You're distorting what your source says by quoting a few words out of context. Here is the first sentence of the abstract: I have observed the implications of white privilege from the standpoint of one who does not possess it.

If you don't have anything new to say or any major new sources, then there's no reason to waste time with further debate about something that's already been extensively discussed, with the consensus being that white privilege exists as a phenomenon, not merely a "concept", and that the phenomenon predates post-modernism by hundreds of years. NightHeron (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@NightHeron: there doesn't seem to be a concensus in here. Only discussion that ended when people got tired of it. As is usually the case with non-falsifiable theories, like conspiracy theories. I'm not distorting what my source says and I'm not saying it is something that doesn't exist in some form. In fact, the author of my source talks about manifestations of it, but yet, prefers to say it is a concept rather than a fact. That's not nothing don't you think? And no, it doesn't predate postmodernism because it is illogical. Anyway, I don't have the mood or time to explain to you how impossible it is to explain the current hierarchy simply by looking through these glasses. Assuming that the inter-group difference is greater than the differences inside that group is the definition of racism. And I'm against racism. Good night. Feynstein (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be neutral to view it as a way of viewing things, to explain observations, rather than as a fact. Because it is not the only reason for racial inequalities. Wealth and its unfair distribution is another. And if you consider that the African American people where freed relatively recently, having a disadvantage in the "wealth game" because of time, then race itself is one of many parameters from which to view racial inequalities. But then, when you look at the WP page for Marxism... It is defined as an analysis method. That's my point. It's basically the same. But instead of looking at wealth, you look at race. Feynstein (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Tell me that you consider the Marxist ideology as a fact, rather than a socioeconomic analysis method. If it was a fact then I guess the Soviet Union would still be a thing. And there wouldn't be human rights violation in China. To view white privilege as a fact is as bad as viewing Marxist ideas as absolutely true. It's another of a plethora of tools to look at society. The fact that it's currently trendy doesn't make it less dangerous than other ideologies. Feynstein (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.   // Timothy :: talk  01:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: thank you. I was finished anyway. I just got off reading the Gulag Archipelago and it tore me apart. It made me look at the current ideologies and I was shocked when I saw how it was written in the first sentence. Feynstein (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Bias and discrimination

This article suffers from an obvious and extreme degree of bias. At no point in the article is it even implied that there is any criticism of the concept of "white privilege" or the various claims and conclusions presented. It is also thoroughly steeped in the jargon of "critical theory" which is in itself highly controversial and incomprehensible to the average reader.

Furthermore I would implore the editors to consider that "Jewish Privilege" redirects to an article called "Economic antisemitism", yet we have all these exhaustive sections written on the subject of "white privilege". It seems the editors of Wikipedia acknowledge that "Jewish Privilege" is a racist attack against Jewish people, yet they condone such racism in this instance. 96.242.147.192 (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The article uses very good sources, the best available. Critical theory is not at all "highly controversial". If this article is incomprehensible to someone of insufficient education, I recommend that they take it in small chunks.

The reason "Jewish privilege" redirects somewhere is because we don't yet have an article about the myth of Jews having some kind of privilege. The supposed privilege doesn't exist except in the minds of people who hate Jews, but it's possible that we could write an article about that hatred and about the myth. Until such an article is written, the only point worth discussing is the question of where should the redirect point. I think it could point to general antisemitism rather than economic antisemitism, but it's debatable. The hatred can also come from a fear of Jews having political power, which is slightly different than economic power. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

"White privilege" is a myth that only exists in the minds of those who hate white people. The only differences are that you can find it in Sokal-esque alphabet soup "journals" of postmodernist bilge, and that the primary proponents of "white privilege" are self-loathing white people themselves. "Jewish privilege" is so vile and absurd that it does not deserve an iota of inquiry or consideration, yet "white privilege" is such authoritative and self-evident fact that it may not even be questioned. Again, the bias is readily apparent. How do you reconcile this cognitive dissonance where one accusation of "privilege" is racist and the other is not? Granted, "Jewish privilege" does not deserve an article -- but this article deserves both sides of the story.

Using "the best available sources" (a highly dubious and subjective claim) does not prevent the article from suffering from selective citations or being entirely one-sided. For how "non-controversial" "critical theory" is according to you, its article at least has a short section explaining some of its criticisms, noting absurdities derived therefrom such as the claim that science is racist. This article is not afforded the acknowledgement of any alternate viewpoint whatsoever.

I also find it patronizing that you say those who do not have the misfortune of being versed in this entirely academic ivory tower nonsense in which everything is subjectivized and abstracted to the point where it loses all meaning are suffering from "insufficient education". Wikipedia is supposed to be easy to understand and refrain from using specialized jargon, no? Just think about those disadvantaged individuals who don't have the "white privilege" of your "sufficient education". 96.242.147.192 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not soapbox or use OR, or I will.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what that's supposed to mean, other than that you don't like what I wrote but don't have a response to it. 96.242.147.192 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It means we are not a forum to discus the topic, we are here only to discuss how to improve the article by making specific suggestions based upon what third party sources say. You neither make specific suggestions, not mention any sources. I can also tell you what my view of white privilege is, does my view trump yours?Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my suggestion to improve the article is to acknowledge that there is legitimate disagreement with the concept of "white privilege" and the various conclusions derived therefrom, which this article currently fails to do. I would assume that your view is already reflected in the entirety of the article, so there is really not any reason for you to make it known. In case you are not aware, as is evidenced by how one-sided this article is, these subjects are sensitive and highly politicized which leads to a suppression of such criticisms in academic publications and academia in general. 96.242.147.192 (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You are just describing your personal opinions instead of making specific suggestions based on reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It's clear by now you are trolling, that you have no constructive suggestions. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The only reason to call this "trolling" is because you don't like what they have to say and have no real counter-argument. It isn't trolling, it's a legitimate opinion that should be considered as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NitroblastDigi (talk • contribs) 22:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

How is this article one sided; I genuinely want to know? I am part of a group of POC working to make Wikipedia more reflective of culturally diverse viewpoints with a focus on the Black experience in America. How can we help? FTIIIOhfive (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)User blocked for abusing multiple accounts. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is not neutral. There is not even a criticism section, while an article about a topic like this, with much criticism deserves its own criticism article. This article portrays white privilege as an undisputed fact, which it is not. It has been a controversial topic ever since it was proposed. Even if the criticism was not valid (which is debatable), it is significant enough to have its own article (and at the very least, a detailed section on this page). I-82-I | TALK. 07:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at length on this talk page, and the consensus is that white privilege is a phenomenon that indisputably exists. Mainstream academic and other opinion agree on this, and white privilege denialism is a fringe viewpoint. For that reason, I'd oppose a general section on criticism. However, there have been mainstream criticisms of particular responses to and interpretations of white privilege. A few months ago I added some critical material, with about 4 sources, to the section White privilege#White privilege pedagogy, but it was reverted. In that section the general point of view of the critics would be that it's not effective pedagogy, especially when dealing with white working class students, to try to get students to acknowledge being privileged. Another good-faith criticism (e.g., by Blum) is that it's a misuse of the word privilege to call not being killed by a cop or not being murdered while jogging a "white privilege." NightHeron (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The view among most editors active on this page is that academic disciplines such as Critical Race Theory and Whiteness studies should be treated as an authoritative discipline, on the level of scientific fields of study. Because these disciplines exist in large part in order to promote ideas like "white privilege," that means that if you only treat literature from fields like CRT and Whiteness studies as authoritative, then you will come to the conclusion that "white privilege" is a fact, and that all other views are WP:FRINGE. Indeed, in CRT and Whiteness studies literature, all other views are fringe. Of course, if you widen your scope to commentary outside of these narrow sociological fields, there is plenty of criticism of the idea of "white privilege." But given the insistence that CRT and Whiteness studies are the equivalent of hard sciences like climate science or biology, there's no room for any fundamental criticism of the concept of "white privilege" in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, well, that's an interesting series of straw men. The actual consensus here is that academic studies trump op-eds and self-published sources, even when those websites are dark and intellectual. Guy (help!) 12:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411: If you read Critical race theory#Critique and controversy and Whiteness studies#Criticisms, you'll see that criticisms of those theoretical frameworks are not treated as fringe by editors. It's the notion that there's no such thing as white privilege that's fringe. NightHeron (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The existence of white privilege is not something concocted by CRT or Whiteness Studies, since white privilege predates those fields by hundreds of years. Whites in the antebellum south of the US, European colonists in Africa, India, etc., and many other whites received plenty of undeserved or unearned benefits from being white and from the suppression of non-whites. The British upper classes often sent their least talented offspring to the colonies, where they would occupy privileged positions in commerce or government despite their lack of qualifications. NightHeron (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I-82-I, criticism sections are frowned upon. There are articles here and there that still have them, as not everything has been brought up to current standards, but the general consensus on Wikipedia is that any critique of the topic should be placed naturally into the article instead of cordoned off into its own section. As other editors have pointed out, multiple discussions here have dealt with the "it isn't real" argument. Please see the archives. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

What do we need to do to put a stop to the FRINGE denialist nonsense, which has disrupted this article for way too long? RfC? ANI? It needs to stop. Editor time is valuable and it mustn't be wasted on the inevitable responses to tendentious repetition of rejected narratives. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO It's neither fringe nor nonsense; it's simple reality: "white privilege" is an unproven theory that fuel racial divisions, and which contradicts available facts. https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2019/no-need-to-plead-guilty/ --Jim Pleiades Hawkins (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, we could start by adding a FAQ. That doesn't stop it, but it makes it much easier to curtail. Guy (help!) 15:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There's already been a lengthy RfC [7] lasting 2 months and closed on 7 March 2020 that reaffirmed that white privilege is a phenomenon (i.e., a fact) rather than just a theory or concept. Shouldn't it suffice to cite that RfC? NightHeron (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, and as a facebook friend noted today, if you've never had to have the Supreme Court determine whether you have rights, that's privilege right there. Guy (help!) 00:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG: Sure, but it might be better to use the word privilege in the sense of its usual meaning, which is very different from a right. A right is something that everyone is entitled to, while in common usage a privilege is something that's undeserved or available only to a select few, like a special perk. When a group is deprived of rights, that doesn't automatically mean that the group that's not deprived of their rights is "privileged." There's a scene in "The Great Debaters" where the Denzel Washington character (who in real life was Melvin B. Tolson) explains to some white workers that the company is using divide and conquer along racial lines to weaken the union struggle. He's basically saying that the oppression of black workers is against the interests of the white workers. It's not bringing them privilege, quite the contrary. His approach to educating the white workers is the opposite of white privilege pedagogy.

On the other hand, there are plenty of situations where racial oppression does bring privileges to many whites --- plantation families in the South, European colonists, farm owners who exploit undocumented Latino immigrants, incompetent white political candidates who get elected by appealing to racism, less qualified whites who get hired because management believes that white customers will be more "comfortable" with them than with the more qualified people of color. All of those whites receive undeserved benefits, which is the common usage of the word privilege. NightHeron (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31033321/ 2601:405:4A80:B950:9D0F:56C8:6014:7ADE (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1477878508095586?journalCode=treb2601:405:4A80:B950:9D0F:56C8:6014:7ADE (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Neither of these sources appear to be on point to this discussion. They may make good points -- but, do not deny the existence of white privilege. O3000 (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

IP-2601:405...: The second of the two sources you cite (the one by Blum) is already being used in the article; in fact, it's cited 9 times. By the way, the reason your first edit appeared to me to be vandalism was that it appeared in a place by the section title where it made no sense. Thanks for fixing that. NightHeron (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Addition

White privilege is not factually proven nor is it a confirmed to be an actual phenomenon. This should be called the "White privilege conspiracy theory" instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalNate (talk • contribs) 02:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — PalNate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The definition and existence of the phenomenon is well sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the guy above me, it's factual and blatant. It's white privilege deniers like you, which is why this page can never be unlocked. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The only "factual" thing about this is that "white privilege" is NOT a fact. It's denied for a VERY good reason, and is no more true than "Jewish privilege" conspiracy theories. https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2019/no-need-to-plead-guilty/ --Jim Pleiades Hawkins (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Lets not soap box, we can all do it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is in a magazine pitched at the "thinking right"[8] and written by Toby Young a supporter of "progressive eugenics" and if his tweets are indicative, a homophobe and misogynist. It's nonsense. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

RS in Last Line of Lead?

Maybe this was already answered but do we have a RS in the last line of the lead? I can't find any info on Inside Higher ED being a RS except for college-based news. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Inside Higher Education seems to be widely recognized as a standard source for information on what different people are thinking about a range of subjects in higher education, but if you have reason to doubt this, you could ask at WP:RSN. NightHeron (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

References

NPOV 2

I see a lot of discussion on whether or not White privilege exists or not. It should be noted that, however party is taken, the scholarship on the topic is anything but uncontroversial and this is not noted in the article. In such cases, there is at least a section on "criticisms", which is missing here. I strongly suggest adding an NPOV because the article is politically charged.--86.6.150.203 (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Please see previous discussions on this topic. Further, "Criticism" sections are actually deprecated on Wikipedia. Any critique should be added into the article in the appropriate sections. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve the article

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

---

I've noticed a few complaints about "bias" in the article, although it doesn't appear the discussion has gone anywhere. I think there are a couple of issues:

1. Whilst there are academics in many countries that have written about "white privilege", the theory has largely grown in the US where racial tensions are very different in other countries like Canada and the UK.
2. It is undeniable that white privilege as a theory exists. However, although the article refers to it as a "social privilege", the reader has to click on that link to find out that social privilege is a "THEORY of special advantage or entitlement". The article implies that white privilege is a fact that is somehow quantifiable.
3. Academic criticism of white privilege might be difficult to come by due to the fact that a lot of this is a new theory. Peggy McIntosh gets referred to a lot (and no, I am not attacking her personally). Not only is she still alive, but I think her essay was only published a few decades ago. It may take decades more to really delve deep into the

First, I would suggest that the lead be refined to make it clear that white privilege is a theory, rather than expecting people to know what social privileges are theoretical.

Second, make clear that the theory has been developed in the US to highlight the fact it may not apply everywhere equally.

Third, I'm sure that a fair-minded editor that has worked on this page before could find some critiques of the theory, not in saying it's all untrue but that the theory is often misunderstood or misrepresented. For example, there is a "mild critique" with a prologue here https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1477878508095586?journalCode=treb. I don't have an account, but someone might be able to look at the article and pull out some useful thoughts. There are also many commentators who have poked holes in the theory. John Smith's (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

John Smith's, white privilege isn't a theory, it's a fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy. Umm, no, the article itself says that white privilege is a societal privilege, which in turn links to the "theory of special advantage or entitlement". White privilege is a social theory/opinion albeit one that has received a lot of discussion and support. You can't say it's a "fact" in the same way that it's a fact the sun rises in the morning or than Donald Trump is President.

If the social privilege article said that "Social privilege is a special advantage or entitlement" then I might be more inclined to think the article to stay as it is. But Wikipedia's position seems to be that social privilege is theoretical. As such, it would be correct to say that White privilege is also a theory.

If you work from the position that it's a "fact" then you can't critique it and that just shuts down any discussion over it. John Smith's (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Second point, I now see there was a RFC earlier this year. I was only trying to be helpful, and I'd rather not open another RFC right now. John Smith's (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

OR time, I have said this before. In my youth I was stopped in SUS regularly enough for me to think "Cop car they are going to stop me" and not be wrong most of the time. I never thought once more then mild annoyance, I never thought "They are going to kick me in". That is why white privilege is a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? John Smith's (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Its why I need to see top line sources saying "its not a fact".Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Because you felt comfortable around the police? I thought Wikipedia was not supposed to be based on personal experiences. Anyway, I know plenty of people across racial groups who are also comfortable around the police. Similarly there are Caucasians from poor communities who feel threatened by the police. How you feel about the police is probably more likely to do with your financial circumstances/that of your family.

Also I don't know why you would have a source saying "white privilege is not a fact", unless it was setting out to debunk the whole theory - which would be strange. You may get references to it being something else like a theory or concept. Anyway, As I said to JzG, I can see that there was an RFC several months ago, so there's no reason to re-open the discussion right now. John Smith's (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Because we go with what RS say, so if RS do not debunk it we cannot imply its been debunked.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? At no point have I said that white privilege is false or has been debunked. I quite clearly said that debunking the whole thing would be strange. White privilege can be a theory/concept and still be valid in many ways.

Perhaps the issue isn't so much whether white privilege exists in any form but what white privilege encompasses. In that sense I see it as a theory or concept because it's up for grabs. Anyway, as I said, I'm not seeking to progress the matter any further, so unless there's something you want to discuss perhaps we could leave it there. John Smith's (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

John Smith's: This issue was discussed at length earlier this year, see [9]. The RfC on the question was closed with a consensus of editors that white privilege is a phenomenon that indisputably exists, and should not be referred to as merely a theory, that is, something dreamt up by academics. NightHeron (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

They have said they wish to drop this, lets honour that request.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

It's only in America

Why this article makes it seem as if it's a real phenomenon everywhere in the world while it's only in the US? Cappyinator (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Source for "only in America"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Problems with 3rd-4th sentences of lead

Part of what's problematic relates to recent edits, and part was there before. The text currently reads:

In the study of white privilege and its broader field of whiteness studies, both pioneered in the United States, academic perspectives such as critical race theory use the concept to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people.[6][7] For example, American academic Peggy McIntosh described...

• The consensus of Wikipedia editors, reached after extensive discussions, is that white privilege is a phenomenon that indisputably exists and has existed for a long time and is not merely a theory or idea. In particular, it existed much before the academic field of whiteness studies arose. The privileges enjoyed by some white people by virtue of race were studied and written about, for example, by W. E. B. Du Bois in the US, Franz Fanon in France, and arguably by the very early European anti-racists such as Bartolomé de las Casas. So it is misleading to refer to the broader field of whiteness studies, as if the study of white privilege has been a part of whiteness studies, and it is also misleading to say that the study of the phenomenon of white privilege was pioneered in the US.

• The claim that both the study of white privilege and the academic field of whiteness studies were pioneered in the US not only ignores the pioneering role of European writers and writers in other parts of the world, but also subtly suggests that white privilege is an issue only in the US. Similarly, the description of Peggy McIntosh as an "American academic" gives undue emphasis to her nationality. The lead of the article Peggy McIntosh describes her in broader terms as an American feminist, anti-racism activist, scholar, speaker,....

I propose deleting the words "and its broader field of whiteness studies, both pioneered in the United States" and "American academic". The wikilink to Peggy McIntosh will make it easy for anyone who wants more information about her to find it. NightHeron (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support Well said, NightHeron. Carlstak (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support and Comment The new source added, does it even support what is being said? Koncorde (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think not. I don't have access to the book, but the index (on Amazon) has no entry for either "white privilege" or "whiteness studies", and a google books search for those two terms within the book also gave nothing. I suspect that it was OR to link the book to those concepts. NightHeron (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I suspect it references whiteness from the perspective of Marxist doctrine of class structure, but I am not what part of the preceding sentence it is intended to support however. There is a section on Critical Race Theory (and Cole has written books specifically about that previously) but that appears to be page 112 onwards. A quote reference embedded would be useful to understand what position he is taking / presenting. Koncorde (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't remove the source because it does seem to be related to the preceding sentence in its present form after my edit. What confused me was that the source was added by the same editor at the same time as the words about the study of white privilege and whiteness studies supposedly originating in the US, and I don't think that's in the source. Another confusing point is that, as I understand it, Marxists do not generally like terminology that focuses exclusively on race rather than class, and so try to avoid it. But white privilege (whether or not that specific term was used by them) has been studied by Marxists. NightHeron (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

White suicide rate

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

---

Privileged, got-it-easy whites fall to suicide at a far greater rate than minorities in the west. Perhaps this perk of whiteness could be included in the article? 2A02:C7F:8F1A:F700:9C5A:148B:191:8AE (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

They do, source?Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, sounds like a variant on the "men are more at risk of suicide" nonsense, which turns out to be "men are more violent so tend to use more effective mechanisms like firearms when they attempt suicide". Guy (help! - typo?) 09:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Even if that were true (it is not), what a horrible thing to say, futhermore do you really think if it were true it would increase the difference to such a degree? Have you no sympathy? Please see section 7 on Here you can see that 59.7% of male suicides are by hanging, and females being 42.1%. The second most common method is poisoning, with 18.2% for males and 38.3% for females. This is in the UK, where we don't have access to firearms, and men still account for 3/4 of suicides.J.Turner99 (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

References

It is true; I've seen evidence before. A quick search shows reliable sources like [10], which say things like The study results indicate that women as a group more frequently attempted suicide rather than actually committing it, whereas men were more likely to complete suicides and choose more violent suicide methods. I do find Guy's tone rather insensitive. All suicide attempts are a very sad occurrence, completed or not, and all suicides are tragic regardless of circumstance. — Bilorv (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing the relevance of this discussion to White privilege. Is there any evidence that a high suicide rate indicates the absence of privilege, or a low suicide rate indicates an abundance of privilege? According to the WHO [11], Europe has more than twice the suicide rate of Africa. Does that mean that Africa is a more privileged region than Europe? Unless someone has a source to demonstrate relevance to the White privilege article, this discussion could perhaps be hatted. NightHeron (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The title of a popular Mexican telenovela says it all: Los ricos también lloran. NightHeron (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I was merely disputing a unfounded claim about the causes of the male suicide rate. J.Turner99 (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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