Talk:Whiteness studies

Deep concerns over theory represented as fact.

No sources. No actionable suggestions. Just kvetching.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lead, as well as the rest of this wildly flawed article, treat the conspiracy of "white privilege" as a fact. This is horribly racist and not based in fact. The concept is only ever presented in reliable sources as a theory or an idea, and in no way represents actual scientific sources. As an expert, I propose we obey the rules of WP:NPOV and not represent this racist conspiracy theory as fact. I've started by adjusting the lead. Innican Soufou (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC) This has been discussed at length, and the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that "white privilege" is a phenomenon (i.e., a fact), not a theory. If you simply defy consensus and edit this page and the page White privilege, your unsourced edits will just be reverted as disruptive. Also, I would strongly advise you not to use inflammatory language, accusing other editors of being "horribly racist" against whites. See WP:NPA. NightHeron (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC) Reality is not dictated by the consensus of wikipedia editors, and it is not the place for wikipedia editors to determine what is, and isn't, a "phenomenon". Please educate yourself and supply scientifically credible peer-researched resources from respected scientific journals that prove your theorem, other-wise, shut up. Kellog2222 (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC) — Kellog2222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Racism is as racism does, and you are certainly racist if you think the field of whiteness studies is valid. The fact that academics have laundered it does not make it acceptable. 46.7.28.113 (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC) "As an expert" Of what? Dimadick (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC) an "expert white person" 2601:842:C180:1077:4525:A80:33E4:2BB9 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

WTF is white trash studies?

I think that at least needs a citation if such a thing actually exists 131.252.67.132 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. I agree that there is something not quite right here. The phrase "white trash studies" appears in the lede but not in the body of the article, which is bad per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The phrase does not appear in the article White trash except once in the title of one of the sources. The only thing that makes me hesitant to remove it is that it has been in the article since November 2019. Maybe it means something to somebody? Can anybody explain/clarify/reword this? If not, I propose removing it and adding White trash to the See Also list instead. DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Per page 360 of the cited source: ...But whiteness studies did not originate solely with Morrison; in the late twentieth century, it had emerged as an academic discipline from two related but distinct scholarly threads: white trash studies and critical race studies. Although they both seemingly foreground whiteness, they offer whiteness studies different focuses, purposes, and effects.

White trash studies analyzes class issues associated with poor whites in the US. It takes its name from a pervasive cultural stereotype in order to undo that stereotype, much as queer studies embraces the term queer. White trash studies gained popularity in the 1980s and 1990s as a means of critiquing representations and misrepresentations of lower-class white culture...[1]

This seems like useful context, so it should probably be explained, briefly, in the body of both this article and of white trash. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Criticism section

I flagged the article per the policy that criticism sections are generally not recommended. Whether or not this policy applies to ideologies, I can't say as they are often found in philosophy pages.

My main concern is that the section leads with criticisms from three figures known primarily for right-wing political commentary; the first (Horowitz) runs an anti-left watchdog site. Highlighting these very predictable criticisms obscures the more legitimate criticisms from qualified experts and actually skews the POV in favor of the field. It would be easy to come away from the article thinking that any criticism is just partisan whining. 2603:7081:1603:A300:E62B:4133:FEEE:6E66 (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue with your characterization of David Horowitz and Douglas Murray as partisan whiners, but I don't think you can dismiss the other two, Dagmar Myslinska [2] and Alastair Bonnett [3], in that way. In any case, feel free to suggest other sources and critics who are more credible than Horowitz and Murray. NightHeron (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes an ideology as "a set of beliefs or philosophies", so I would say that the subsection "Philosophy, religion, or politics" applies and it states that "For topics about a particular point of view (...) it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section". While I agree that leading the section with right-wing political commentary instead of academic analysis may not be the most informative approach, dismissing it entirely purely because of their partizanship would violate WP:PARTISAN. –Turaids (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)