Talk:White privilege/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Contentious claim in first sentence

"White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances."

Reduced: "White people are privileged (sometimes)."

Since when is Wikipedia a pulpit for BLM? If this article is written from a neutral point of view, then I'm a flying unicorn with rainbow hair.

Krehel (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Its not, its written from the POV of what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The statement contained in the first sentence is not sourced at all. The second source states "scholars mostly concentrate on the idea of power as a white economic and political privilege, which is assumed to have been formed over centuries and to still be unconsciously perpetuated by individuals." The source explicitly states that this idea is based on assumption not any sort of empirical evidence. It would be accurate to describe white privilege as conjecture or an idea. I suggest rewording as follows: "White privilege, or white skin privilege, describes a belief that white people possess societal privilege over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.140.195 (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Appears to fit WP:NPOV to me. Don't know what this has to do with BLM as white privilege predates BLM. Unicorns either, in any of the definitions. O3000 (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000, hmm are you sure the WP predates Unicorns? It’s an interesting question, though. Mvbaron (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll ask mine. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice rainbow hair.;-) Carlstak (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Definite POV statement. Since is does not exist except as a race card.96.81.123.61 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have RS stating this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the RS that empirically shows the existence of white privilege? From what I can tell by looking at the article references, the idea of white privilege stems from Peggy McIntosh's invisible knapsack essay which presupposes its existence. What reliable sources clearly show that is does in fact exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Somewhere in the article it should clearly state that these are not facts. They are for the most part theories and opinions. Seanb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8300:94A0:D088:5639:FC99:111 (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The article should clearly state this is opinion and not fact. Critical race theory and ideas like that are not history or facts. This reads like a woke editorial. User:SeanBData

FYI: This has been discussed before, in an RFC here. Of note is widespread expert backing for the existence of race-based privileges.

• In 2003, Ella Bell and Stella Nkomo noted that "most scholars of race relations embrace the use of [the concept] white privilege". (as cited in the article)
• "Race serves as a basis for the distribution of social privileges and resources." (American Sociological Association, 2003 [1])
• "The 'racial' worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth." (American Anthropological Association, 1998 [2])--Carwil (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

"White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege" to "White privilege, or white skin privilege, is a theoretical societal privilege" Bigbaachus (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. We have discussed this issue thoroughly and have determined otherwise. See Talk:White_privilege/Archive_18#RFC for the past discussion. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Not surprising that this editor's only other edit was Sept. 2019 removing "The Journal editorial board has promoted pseudoscientific views on the science of climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos." from the Wall Street Journal article. Doug Weller talk 06:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

There is no such thing as “White Privilege”, it’s a fantasy conjured up by racists. This racist term should be removed immediately if anyone has any common sense left. 47.203.41.188 (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The 188 published sources in this article would seem to disagree with you. In any case, if you'd like to request that this article be deleted, that would be a matter for WP:Articles for deletion. I wish you the best of luck. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021

Note to Editor: The existing wording (in Change FROM) suggests white privilege is a fact not disputed by anyone, but this is not correct and critics of the concept would see the current text as unrepresentative of all views, therefore biased. The new text (in Change TO) has minor adjustments and an additional sentence to attempt to reflect supporters and critics views fairly wrt Rev. Martin Luther King. (my apologies for any formatting errors)

Change FROM:

White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. With roots in European colonialism and imperialism, and the Atlantic slave trade, white privilege has developed in circumstances that have broadly sought to protect white racial privileges, various national citizenships, and other rights or special benefits.

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.

Change TO:

White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege that some people believe benefits white people over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. Evolving within European colonialism and imperialism, and the Atlantic slave trade, the white privilege concept is thought to seek to protect perceived white racial privileges, various national citizenships, and other rights or special benefits.

In the study of white privilege and its broader field of whiteness studies, which evolved in the United States, academic perspectives such as critical race theory use the concept to analyze the extent and degree that racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people and people of color.

The concept of white privilege is controversial as it defines people by their skin color, effectively telling colored people they are victims and telling white people they are oppressors. Whereas many people believe all races should be treated equally, not differently, and should be judged against Rev. Martin Luther King's dream..."that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Peterg52 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Non-Factual First Sentence

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.

---

"White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances."

This is incredibly offensive, with no basis in fact. It should be described as a concept or idea, not a universally accepted truth. Johnallenmartin (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

factual per WP:LEAD, see main body for references, for example: "White privilege is a social phenomenon. Although the definition of "white privilege" has been somewhat fluid, it is generally agreed to refer to the implicit or systemic advantages that people who are deemed white have relative to people who are not deemed white; it is the absence of suspicion and other negative reactions that white people experience." Acousmana (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

References

This is part of a general problem in Wikipedia associated with articles about abstract concepts regarding controversial issues. There's an assumption that because reliable sources say the abstraction represents reality that the abstraction does in fact represent reality. This is epistemic hubris. Teishin (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

no conspiracy, you can, using WP:RS, offer an alternative epistemic frame. Acousmana (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The question of whether white privilege should be described as a "concept" or a "phenomenon" was discussed at length in an RfC a year ago, and the consensus was that it's a "phenomenon", that is, that it indisputably exists, based on RS. See [3]. NightHeron (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but without some high level RS challenging the existence of this we cannot act as if it is in fact controversial. Just because some right-wing pundits think it is does not man it is academically.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is "high level"? This seems to me to indicate that only scholarly peer reviewed sources are acceptable and that social consensus means nothing. There is more than enough criticism in wider social discourse that debates the existence or extent of white privilege. Further, the system of peer review has enough issues that suggesting that peer reviewed sources are automatically rock-solid is incorrect. It is saddening that the article is essentially now blocked off from even mentioning such criticism or providing the opportunity for such criticism and/or it's introduction to be discussed. Such criticism would tend to indicate that white privilege "indisputably exist(ing)" would, it follows, be incorrect. It is not a universal concept. Thanks. PS: I am not right wing or even conservative myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.12.34 (talk) 07:55, June 21, 2021 (UTC)

"High level" means "highly trustworthy". That would include peer-reviewed scholarly sources, but not necessarily be limited to them in this case.

It is saddening that the article is essentially now blocked off from even mentioning such criticism or providing the opportunity for such criticism and/or it's introduction to be discussed. The only criticism which has been made has been the personal criticism of countless anonymous people on the internet, which is blocked off from being mentioned by literally every single article we have per our policy of No Original Research.

It's an extremely valuable policy, as it undercuts arguments like your which imply that some random IP is more trustworthy than widely-acknowledged experts and journalists. Not that such a ridiculous implication needs to be undercut, but it helps cut down on the sealioning and POV pushing a bit.

P.S. Anyone who feels the need to claim not to be right-wing while defending right-wing claims is certainly right-wing, in my experience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

How do we determine "social consensus", without resorting to wp:or?Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, since the popular press is a reflection of social attitudes, a broader "social" consensus could be arrived at by examining the popular press, eliminating unreliable examples, and then taking a read of what the reliable examples of the popular press say. Which sounds vaguely familiar... Almost as if we're doing that already... Hmmmm... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Still OR, as we cannot read ALL popular press, rather we should go with what RS say about the broader "social" consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm saving this diff. I want there to be a record of the time Slater claimed that summarizing the viewpoints of reliable sources is OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That is not what I said, what I said is we can't say that there is a consensus unless we have read (and can demonstrate we have read) all of the sources. If we judge a "connsensus" on a sample of sources that is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that's even worse than calling summarizing the views of RSes OR. Now you're claiming that we can't make any statements in wikivoice or describe any topic without attribution unless we've read every possible source about it. You'd better get started on applying that standard, as there are 6 million articles we haven't done it to, and even fixing one article could take a lifetime. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

"rather we should go with what RS say about the broader "social" consensus"", the clue is in the words I used.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to realize that's exactly what I described, instead of inventing reasons to argue with me. Not sure how long I'll be waiting though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, then we can drop this, as we both agree.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

No, Slatersteven, that is not OR, that is WP:CHERRYPICKING, which is not admissible either as it's an error in determining WP:DUE WEIGHT, but hardly OR. When there's a bounty of sources and you can't check them all to determine majority, minority, or fringe status, then sometimes tallying tertiary sources is a good proxy for the totality of secondary sources, and one could try that. Mathglot (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

"I have seen 3 sources that say X so all sources must say X" is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

True, but it does have to be reasoanbly a lot (and preferbly as majority), at least enough for any resoanble person to think "this might be the majority".Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and the presumption is that this, being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, if an article doesn't reflect the actual consensus of the sources, someone will show up with reliable sources to correct that. We can't not write articles just because we haven't read every source possible, so we write based on the sources we have, and improve as new sources are brought in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

You still seem to be looking for a disagreement were none exists.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that's rich, lol.

Slater, I'm not looking for an argument, I just keep getting one shoved in my face by your refusal to listen to anything that's been said to you by two different editors now, or possibly, your refusal to understand it. Whichever it is, as long as you keep arguing with things nobody has said and refusing to read and think through the things we have said, you're going to experience pushback.

I know you have a serious dislike for me, it's been obvious for a long time in the way you react to me. But at some point, the fact that I've continued to try to work with you and even be friendly towards you for literally years now should have sunk in, and if it hasn't, that's frankly your problem and not mine, so why don't you deal with it on your own time, kay? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

"Countless" people (your own term) disagree with you and the "widely-acknowledged experts and journalists" (I note that you never referenced any of them). Surely then the "countless" (emphasis yours) consensus outweighs the non-defined experts here then? Which means that it is a sociological theory rather than a fact? Thanks for exposing your complete lack of neutrality by the way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.12.34 (talk) 16:42, June 21, 2021 (UTC)

See wp:undue, no one expert's opinion outweighs all the passengers on the Clapham omnibus. Even if it did not, consensus does not mean many it means a general (I.E. most people) agree. How do you even go about showing that?Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First off, please sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end (~~~~) every time you post to a talk page.

Second, if those countless people have got the slightest clue what they're talking about, there should be some reflection of their view in reliable sources. So go find some of those. We certainly aren't going to simply take your word for it.

Third, the sources I mentioned are cited right there in the article. Yeesh, it's only one click away, are you really that incapable of looking for yourself?

Fourth, my third point doesn't include the five fucking sources that Acousmana listed right here in this very discussion. I mean, holy cow, would those be easy to find if you'd just look at the discussion instead of proceeding straight to whining about not getting your way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, can we keep this discussion civil please? Using expletives just deteriorates the whole conversation. Secondly, the "countless" claim was yours, not mine. It's in black and white and saved. Thirdly, I haven't made any claims nor have I asked for any sources (indeed check my original post), I'm asking to be able to make those claims. Fourth, if I can provide evidence that white privilege is socially disputed and provided evidence, that would be reflected in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.12.34 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Regarding "Fourth", a lot of things are socially disputed, such as anthropogenic climate change, mask-wearing during a pandemic, evolution of species, and the result of the US presidential election last year. NightHeron (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

+1 to this. It has to be disputed by recognized experts and respected journalists, not random people. And even with evidence of this, if it's just a minority who dispute it, our article must reflect that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

What edit do you want to make, and which sources do you wish to use?Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You claimed that I never referenced any experts, you also claimed these experts were "non-defined". I pointed out that numerous experts have been referenced by the article and in this very discussion (which, by necessity, defines who they are), obviating the need for me to continue to point them out.

You claimed there's a "social consensus" that you strongly implied contradicts the views of the experts.

And I don't understand why you're whining about my use of the word "countless". I never claimed I didn't use it, didn't attribute it to you, and still stand by my use of it.

Also, if you don't like four letter words, you should probably get off the fucking internet. The whole thing is a cesspool. Ever heard of "two girls one cup"? If not, you're lucky. Don't google it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That was not a reference I was expecting to see today. And I was happy to have forgotten about it until now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Can't say as I really blame you on that. Also goatse. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I would remind users of [[wp:TALK].Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 22 June 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.

RS for the first sentence?

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.

---

After reviewing the talk archives, I see a number of opinion-based arguments saying that white privilege unequivocally exists but without citing specific evidence to that effect from a RS. I also see quite a lot of people contesting that assertion saying that white privilege is just a belief or an idea that people use to describe their world view. The first sentence in this article reads:

White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

Yet there is no citation and no reliable source that is provided to justify the matter of fact existence of white privilege the way it is being framed here. Can anyone suggest a reliable source that provides empirical evidence to support the strongly worded statement in this sentence? If not then we definitely have a NPOV problem with how this topic is being presented.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk • contribs) 19:54, April 7, 2021 (UTC)

There is no problem to fix here. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is a summary of cited article text. We don't need a cite for the first sentence, as it accurately summarizes the article. The consensus is clear that the topic exists. If you peruse the Talk page archives, you will see a January 2020 discussion that set Wikipedia consensus on the issue. To change that, you would need to start a new discussion, and argue more convincingly than the previous people. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you please provide the RS that clearly shows empirical evidence for the existence of white privilege? After looking through the cited sources I see nothing that supports that statement. From the archived discussions I see that the majority opinion of editors participating in the discussion is that white privilege exists, however a fundamental tenant of WP:NPOV is to "Avoid stating opinions as facts." That is exactly what the first sentence appears to be doing. If I am missing some clear empirical evidence from a RS that proves causality of the purported societal benefits stemming from having light skin color I'd be happy to retract my concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

In addition, Binksternet, per WP:LEAD:

The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

So it's not correct to say that there is no need to cite the first sentence. As you can see in numerous ongoing examples from the talk section, this statement is challenged on a regular basis so it is disingenuous to claim that there is no need to support the first statement with evidence from a RS. The seminal paper on this topic is Peggy McIntosh's papers on the Invisible Knapsack which presupposes the existence of white privilege without any attempt to show that or prove causality between the listed privileges and having light colored skin. The same problem exists for every every RS cited in this article. No one is disputing that there are people who believe that white privilege exists, but that does not mean that there is any evidence that it does exist. By this low standard we should update the lead for God to say that God is the one true almighty creator of the universe because there are a lot of people who believe that.

• I've added some refs from the definition section to the lead. That said, it's important to understand that while you're demanding RS that meet your (implied) standard for empirical evidence for the existence of white privilege, that isn't how Wikipedia works or the standard for the RSes we use for this sort of thing; our job is to summarize the conclusions of reliable sources, not to challenge their logic or conclusions. If high-quality peer-reviewed academic sources overwhelmingly treat it as fact (and they do, on the whole), then we have to do the same thing - arguing "but these papers don't convince me; they just say it's true!" isn't a sufficient objection. In fact, having a broad swath of papers treating something as unexceptionally true is a strong argument for us to do the same in the article voice. We're an encyclopedia, not a debate society - we just summarize the broad currently-accepted views among reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. What I am saying is that the none of the sources you have cited show any sort of evidence for the existence of white privilege. If the intent is to summarize the RS then it would be entirely accurate to say that many people believe white privilege exists. Peggy McIntosh believes it exists, her essay presupposes its existence and presents it as pure conjecture. Robert Jensen says that the phenomenon exists by saying it's complex (this is analogous to someone saying "God works in mysterious ways" as a RS for the existence of God). Tim Wise points out that poor white people exist, which certainly suggests that many of the privileges may have more to do with wealth rather than skin color. The reference by Fenwick Wise states that "Some educational researchers today have called this phenomenon 'white privilege'". This citation is just a weasel word once removed. It would be entirely accurate to call white privilege a belief or an idea or more accurately from an academic perspective conjecture, a hypothesis if we're feeling generous. As it reads now, the first sentence is misleading readers by presenting opinion as if it were a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk • contribs)

Quite the opposite, actually. Nearly all of the sources treat white privilege as a fact. So stop with your assertions to the contrary. Without comparing an exhaustive list of sources, you have no leverage in your argument. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I am not disputing the fact that there are people who believe that white privilege exists. I'm disputing the fact that there is any empirical evidence to support that belief. I have read every source for this article in its entirety. If you feel that I have missed a source which provides empirical evidence demonstrating the existence of white privilege scientifically please point to the specific RS so I can revisit the source and we can factor that into this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk • contribs)

Then go get yourself into academia and publish your research. Until then, ciao. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

75.166.150.117, if you were to look around the serious literature on the topic, you would find innumerable citations about the existence of white privilege. To take only one of countless examples, the difference in how phone calls to real-estate agents from apartment- or house-seekers are handled from the identical callers, depending whether they give a name over the phone that "sounds white", or doesn't.

As far as whether citations are required in the lead, there is neither a requirement for it, nor a proscription against it, and for controversial issues, it may be appropriate to have such citations in the lead. On the other hand, it would make more sense to do that if there were an actual controversy about the existence of white privilege in reliable sources, and there isn't one. (If you think there is, please demonstrate it.)

There is no requirement for a Wikipedia article to please individual editors who come by and complain about their pet peeve without providing any evidence. I can't really determine if you are in earnest, but are poorly informed on the topic, but I have to tell you that right-wing trolls who show up at the article just to stir up trouble make some of the same points that you do. If you are the former rather than the latter, please demonstrate your bona fides by listing a number of highly reliable, secondary sources that back up what you say. (Trade journal surveys of the literature on discrimination and white privilege would be ideal; try scholar.google.com, and look for the words "review" or "survey".) If you cannot do this, then frankly, you're just wasting everybody's time; editors at Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers and there is no obligation for other editors to answer every one of your questions, or to respond endlessly to your opinions, in the absence of any additional resources brought to bear likely to lead to the improvement of the article. At some point, other editors will tire of responding to you, you won't have achieved consensus, and nothing will change at the article. In common parlance: you now need to put up, or shut up. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I’ve noticed some are using WP:LEAD to justify the first sentence. WP:LEAD states that “It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view” which this doesn’t seem to be the case with how this sentence is written. The sentence is clearly written in a way if a basic reader was to read it, they would be getting information that is telling them that white privilege is specifically as stated, and there is nothing to the opposing view. Bntlyprce (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length, and the conclusion of those discussions was that the consensus of RS is that white privilege is a phenomenon, not a theory, and the notion that there might not really be any such thing is a fringe view. The lead reflects the consensus, not the fringe view. NightHeron (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be the case, based on the above comments, that Wikipedia has adopted a position that is a thoroughly racist position, and consequently an offensive position. Compare: Assume Wikipedia has adopted the position that the international jewish conspiracy is a fact. Asgrrr (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Except white people are not a persecuted minoroty.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 4 July 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.

Recruiting tag

@MPants at work: regarding your reinstatement of the {{Recruiting}} tag (first added in 2012), if you wish to own this please provide reasonably recent evidence of recruitment (and please add a |date= param to the template, and optionally |reason= and |talk= as well). I originally removed the template per WP:WTRMT points 5 ("no longer relevant") and 6 ("dormant,... no support"), and because it doesn't appear to fit any of the points under WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT.

Apart from a discussion I originated a year ago (in Archive 19) speculating about off-wiki activity based on a spike in page views around that date which garnered no follow-up from pinged editors, there have been no occurrences of the terms sock, recruit, meat, offline, off-wiki, or canvas in the revision history of this page for the last fifteen months at least. The last previous occurrence that *might* imply recruitment is from a discussion in Jan 2020 (Archive 17), when a couple dozen users were pinged to the discussion (diff), but that seems to be in response to User:Doug Weller's request to another editor (diff) to notify participants in a previous discussion; in any case, I see no unusual activity at the article in the period following the pings in that discussion. That takes us to 18 months ago, and unless you have something specific, I see no need for the {{recruiting}} template anymore, as requirements for removal have been satisfied. There's already a {{controversial}} template in place at the top of this page, and conditions for that notice remain in effect, and cover this territory adequately, in my opinion. Do you know something I don't? Mathglot (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Have you looked at the discussions on this page? I mean, you yourself just collapsed a discussion calling it "trolling flamebait".

This article regularly attracts trolls and POV pushers, and there's a clear pattern of them coming in waves, if you look at the timestamps. Stormfront has a standing call for members to come to Wikipedia and edit articles like this one (and several others of interest to Neo Nazis). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There are "standing calls" for all sorts of nonsense on the internet that don't actually engender any activity at Wikipedia, and we can't control what websites do on their own pages. I'm asking for actual evidence that recruiting/canvassing is going on here at the article, or even at the Talk page, any time in the last year or two. If we don't have that, then the template should be removed per the how-to guide. The flamebait above is not evidence of canvassing; I could point to countless highly POV edits at disparate articles or Talk pages from brand new users with a chip on their shoulder about something or other; if that ever stops, it'll be like the train whistle that didn't blow late at night and woke you up. You say that "there's a clear pattern of them coming in waves": that would be the kind of evidence of something going on, so if you could please demonstrate the pattern, that would help. I went back to January 2020, and didn't see it. I was relying primarily on the content of the edit summaries, so I may have missed something you're aware of. Mathglot (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

P.S., I modified the page views graph at the top to be able to better track medium-term activity. There was a noticeable spike around June 2020. Mathglot (talk)

My concern here is not of a specific incident of recruiting, but of a recurring series of incidents of recruiting to this and other pages which leads those recruited editors here. I would like careful editors who come here for the first time to be aware that not all complaints posted here are done in good faith, and would like them to understand better the reasons for this.

Regarding the section you closed: it in and of itself is not evidence of recruiting, but a single datum. It, combined with the countless other such threads and the patterns I described (which are now visually represented to a certain degree in the pageview graphs to added) are the evidence.

WRT the guidance at H:MTR, I don't believe the lack of evidence of a specific incidence is sufficient to resolve the long-standing issue of motivated actors coming in here at the urging of others.

Given the nature of the subject, I'm generally more inclined to believe that the issue is ongoing until I either see evidence that it has stopped, or until I see evidence that the cultural zeitgeist of motivated actors has moved on to something that no longer incentives them to "correct" articles like this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You said,

It, combined with the countless other such threads and the patterns I described (which are now visually represented to a certain degree in the pageview graphs to added) are the evidence.

You've described or asserted "other threads" and "patterns", but not provided evidence of any of them. The pageviews graph is evidence of pageviews, and in no way is it indicative of canvassing. The evidence that I've presented—or rather, absence of evidence, always subject to counterexamples I missed—is concrete, with nothing visible since January 2020, other than what I linked above. I've asked for you to link the patterns or threads you've witnessed, but you haven't. This is as far as I'm going to go with this, as it's not worth more words on my part for something so minor, but I do think that content disputes should be based on evidence and I'm not seeing it. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess you're expecting me to lay everything out and do an in-depth analysis, to save you the trouble of skimming through a couple pages of recent archives and spot-checking some older ones, but that's not gonna happen. You can examine the archives yourself, and if you get a different impression from them than I've gotten from the several years I've been watching this article, then that's worth discussing. But if all you can do is continue claiming I haven't shown you the evidence which I've directed you to twice now, then there's nothing more to say here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Loury passage

There seems to be a few objections to the Loury passage me and another editor have worked to add to the article:

Brown professor Glenn Loury argues that "There is a dark side to the 'white fragility' blame game" in that it may encourage a defensiveness of white identity that transforms into a white-pride backlash.

One seems to be with this coming from Quillette. While Quillette may not be a reliable source for many facts, it is being used as a source here for Loury's perspective in an article written by Loury--so I am not sure what the reliable sourcing issue is here? I tried to make this point clear in earlier edit summaries.

Another issue is questioning Loury's expertise. Here, a quick perusal of his Wikipedia page should make it clear that he is a very prominent scholar on issues of race (e.g. "Loury left Harvard in 1991 to go to Boston University, where he headed the Institute on Race and Social Division.").

A concern about original research. I am not sure what this is about. I paraphrased a point he was making to make it more concise and understandable (in response to a previous editor objecting to the phrasing).

I think this passage should be retained and it does a nice job of connecting the White Fragility and White Backlash sections of the article. -Pengortm (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

A big part of the problem is that Loury is writing in Quillette where he will not be held to the high standards of scholarship such as peer review. Another big part is that Loury is writing for the very racist and reactionary Bruce D. Benson Center for the Study of Western Civilization (the Quillette piece is a reprint of the lecture.) Loury has shot himself in the foot here, losing credibility. Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Well the OR part is the most important for me: aside from the sub-heading in Loury’s comment in Quillette, the term ‘white fragility’ does not come up, and it’s unclear what Loury means by the following paragraph and how it connected to ‘white fragility’. Furthermore, the term ‘blame game’ never comes up again either, it’s entirely unclear what Loury means and I don’t see where your summary comes from. If Loury is indeed notable (maybe he is I find it hard to measure that), then a better summary of his views might be WP:DUE somewhere in the article, but in the piece here, he doesn’t seem to say anything of substance about white fragility. Mvbaron (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

WP:FORUM applies. Not an actual suggestion to improve the article, just disagreement with its premise. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I find it incredible that there is still any debate about the intro to this article. It says quite clearly that white privilege is the "societal privilege" that benefits white people etc etc. In short, this is a clear statement of a point of view. It's an opinion stated quite clearly as if it's an indisputable fact. How can there be any debate about this? It's a POV. This rubbish should have been cleared up ages ago. The only reason it's still here is obviously political correctness (otherwise known as white guilt). Sardaka (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Or because most experts say it is real, thus we do.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC) And who are these experts, pray tell? The politically correct, of course, who have a political axe to grind. If you claim that the so-called experts make this statement, it is up to you to provide the evidence. Anyone can dogmatically say "the experts say it". Please produce the proof. Otherwise, this is just another case of the PC brigade taking control, and their attitude is, there is only one view allowed: theirs. Most of the article looks reasonably balanced. It's only the intro that is particularly racist and offensive. All we have to do is change the opening sentence so it says "white privilege is said to be the societal privilege etc etc". I don't think that's asking too much.Sardaka (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Read the article, all the sources are there., our lead reflects those.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC) And who are the sources? The PC brigade, of course. The writers of the article have obviously chosen refs that suit their POV. In politics it's called branch stacking. This article should have a POV tag. Does anyone object?Sardaka (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Does anyone object? Yes, at this point there is no reason to put a POV tag on this article, which is well-sourced. You have merely stated your personal opinions. You need to find reliable sources that support specific proposed edits if you want to make changes in the article. Insulting other editors and throwing around words like "racist" will get you nowhere. NightHeron (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC) And with "The PC brigade" we can close this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC) It doesn't matter how well sourced the article is. It is still expressing an opinion as if it is fact. However, I have had enough experience of WP to know when I have come upon one of those articles which is controlled by people who make sure the article expresses their personal view. Therefore, I will now bow out and let you people have the article, and control the article, to your heart's content. You won't have to put up with me anymore. Goodbye. Sardaka (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "It doesn't matter how well sourced the article is." That is quite a statement and it is probably better if its auther does not edit here. Carptrash (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Blatant Anglosphere POV and low quality

This entire article, for somebody who doesn't come from the anglosphere, and maintains intellectual distance with its' quite strong cultural propaganda, isn't up to academic standards. It's not "the english's wikipedia", it's "wikipedia in english", so it's an obvious breach of WP:NPOV. Most of french academics, in example, would be horrified by the way this article pretends to fight racism, which seems to be his first purpose. First, a lot of people accused of white "privilege" today are considered unprivileged within their own societies, minorities included (or at least part of them). Conversely, some members of minorities have extremely desireable social positions, and sociological research shows that social position is the most important thing for a large majority of the social "scales"(health/life expectancy, happiness, wealth, etc...) considered. While it was a perfect concept for color-based colonial societies, like French Algeria, "white privilege" has probably lost a great deal (all?) of its value. Also, the term "privilege" in english doesn't match the situation because of its' meaning and etymology. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/privilege What's factually happening is more that a larger than normal number of people within those minorities don't enjoy the same freedoms or rights as majorities, while according to the local laws, they should. None of these local laws make differences between citizens according to their skin color, it's rather a interpersonal social issue that has a lot to do with racism. When a case goes to justice, or goes public, minority members win most of the time for this reason. Please bear in mind that "this social group is privileged" was the main argument of hitler against the jews (and of most far-right racial hatred arguments in history), while being ALSO an inaccurate depiction of the situation. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is not to endorse every militant concept generated by the anglosphere. It should instead point out that those concepts have an uncanny habit of being centered around race instead of social capitals like wealth, education or social connexions. It should maintain critical distance and remind that a lot of societes and academic don't agree with that analysis, and fight the problem differently. For this reason, the intro should be rewritten in a more neutral style, and a "criticism" section should be added. Finally, i would ask the person who tried to portray the criticism as being only "right-wing" to stop editing encyclopaedias until further notice. It's not even true for the anglosphere, and counter-example take 5 seconds to find. This much-discussed book details the problem within the context of social sciences, for a more in-depth analysis: Stéphane Beaud, Gérard Noiriel, Race et sciences sociales. Essai sur les usages publics d'une catégorie, Marseille, Agone, coll. « Épreuves sociales », 2021, 421 p., ISBN : 978-2-7489-0450-5. An extract in english can be read here: https://mondediplo.com/2021/02/10race

77.131.39.197 (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

References

In order for *anyone* to read through your lengthy comment or take it seriously, you should make a concise suggestion for a change in the article here or just edit the article itself and see if the edit stays. Otherwise this comment looks like your just trying to promote that book you mention above. I doubt that anyone will go through the book and make exactly the edits you want - you’ll have to do that yourself! Mvbaron (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Critcism sections are deprecated, so that's not going to happen. Any critique can be worked into the article as-is. But your entire argument is just that, an argument. It's not an actual suggestion for improving the article in any way, it's just a rant. Unless you have a direct suggestion for changes to the article, this is going nowhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Criticism sections are certainly not deprecated. See Creationism talk page. DenverCoder9 (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Imperialism in second sentence

The lede should be broadened not just to include the Anglo-sphere notion of white privilege.

The concept of "white privilege" is broad, and does not always refer to imperialism. See white privilege in modern day Kazakhstan and East Turkestan. Not all works grappling with white privilege examine it through the lens of imperialism, so the lede shouldn't be so narrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi DenverCoder19, I still reverted your removal, because it just removed sourced content. I agree that we could make this article less european-centered, but do you have some proposals or literature that might add this perspective to the body of the article? -- Best, Mvbaron (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It is great to include this in the body. The lede is for the definition of the concept as broadly applied, not specific related concepts. If you want to include in the body, you are free to do so. DenverCoder9 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

hmm? the lead summarizes the body. It's not there to define anything on it's own. Also as you seem to be interested in the topic, I asked you of you could provide some literature, I wouldn't know where to start with that: See white privilege in modern day Kazakhstan and East Turkestan. Not all works grappling with white privilege examine it through the lens of imperialism. -- Mvbaron (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, please note that it is considered vandalism to continue to add content that is still being discussed in the talk page. I reverted the page to its previous state. The onus is on you in this talk page to show that it should be included, before simply repeatedly adding to the article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

what are you talking about? you deleted sourced content. I re-added it. Per BRD we are discussing it now. please don't edit war. Mvbaron (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

no counter point

Can someone add a controversy or counter point to this topic please? 2A02:C7F:F61E:9300:D9AF:E0DD:AE1A:86F1 (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

No. You're asking for a false balance. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Fundamentally, the concept of white privilege is actually a product of "whiteness" itself and is therefore self-referential in nature. There are various epistemological critiques point out contradictions and flaws in the concept of white privilege. This is not to say, however, that white privilege doesn't exist, but to say that critiques exist in and outside the academic community.JRizzled (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This was already debated at length in an RfC, which concluded that white privilege is a real phenomenon, not merely a sociological theory. Note that the article does cover critiques of certain theories about white privilege, such as white privilege pedagogy and white fragility. NightHeron (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Any critique would be naturally written into the article itself. Criticism sections have been deprecated for years. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

So should we erase the criticism section of other articles, like Clash of Civilizations theory for example? User:Knoterification (talk) 20:35, 05 December 2021 (Brasilia)

Those sections should have their contents properly integrated into the article, and the section removed, yes. But, you'll need to discuss how to do that on the relevant articles Talk pages. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

YOu provide decent RS challenging it and it might be worth discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I would concur both that criticisms should be derived from reliable academic sources and also that criticism sections should not be used but rather those criticisms should be organically integrated into the contents of the article. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2015. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacademician.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Afuakessie, Shantalaleman. Peer reviewers: SandraJaay.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacksasso39. Peer reviewers: DeannaD97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Many Believe"

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 realize that this topic has been done to death in an RfC, but adding "Many Believe" in between "Societal Privilege" and "that benefits" in the first sentence of the lead, looking like this:

White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege that many believe benefits white people over non-white people

I don't want to go off and WP:RGW, but this edit wouldn't change the substance of the article, but it would make it so much more balanced to the readers' perspective. The way the article is written now makes it appear as if Wikipedia is claiming this is an absolute, irrefutable, metaphysical fact-o-nature, and so adding this would acknowledge it is not a universally held opinion. Despite me not being able to verbalize my logic well, a reader would stumble upon the article, read the "Many Believe" addition, and find that it really helps to add just a little bit of "balance" to the piece. They would read the opener, and, as we know people only read the first couple of sentences, walk away satisfied. Thinking to themselves "Wikipedia hasn't gone 'woke'", and hopefully, not bombarding the talk page with the same comments about LiBeRaL bIaS.

Understandably, it'll have some problems due to the RfC decision, but since this wouldn't be interfering with the idea that White privilege is a real thing and not just a sociological concept, it might not be so hard.

KlammyKlam (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Many believe" is just WP:WEASEL wording, especially if it's not cited to a good source. The fact is, this is a recognized phenomenon and we've gone over this repeatedly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Be that as it may, in MOS:WEASEL, it says that terms such as "Many Believe" are acceptable for use in the lead, as long as there is a citation in the body, if I were to find a reliable citation to back this claim up would I be able to put this idea in the lead as it, to the best of my knowledge, wouldn't interfere with the aforementioned RfC? KlammyKlam (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Inserting those words would obviously be against the conclusion of the RfC, since saying that it's just something that "many believe" is just like saying it's only a theory rather than a phenomenon that, according to mainstream sources, indisputably exists. NightHeron (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Saying that "many believe" the earth is flat, or climate change is fake, doesn't mean that a round earth, or global warming is a theory. Those things are still indisputably true. The reason I'm advocating for adding "Many Believe" to the lead is to reduce the incredible amount of controversy surrounding the article. Also, a significantly larger amount of people believe that white privilege is not real then the amount of people which believe the earth is flat. To reiterate, I'm not claiming that White Privilege isn't real, but rather that many people don't. In my opinion, this would reduce the amount of controversy surrounding the article. KlammyKlam (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a false analogy. The correct analogy is: Suppose Wikipedia had an article on shape of the Earth that starts out "Many people believe that the Earth is round." NightHeron (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

In addition, according to the Pew Research Center, 43% of Americans, over all races, genders, and political parties, believe that white people benefit "Not too much" or "Not at all" from white privilege. You can find that poll here. 43%, while not being a majority, is, in my opinion, a significant enough population to claim that a belief in White Privilege is held by "Many People", while in the current state the lead insinuates a belief in white privilege is held by everybody. KlammyKlam (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You could find similar stats on the percent of Americans who believe in creationism, climate change denial, the "stolen 2020 election", or alt med cures for Covid. After Obama's election, a lot of (white) Americans took that as proof that racism is no longer a problem in the US. Opinion surveys of Americans is not how Wikipedia determines what reliable sources say. NightHeron (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, My problem in this article is that, in my opinion, it is insinuating everybody believes in this concept, which is inherently untrue. KlammyKlam (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:UNDUE, which describe policy in this situation. Note that the Evolution article does not have anything in the lead about creationists, although they're mentioned briefly in the main body in the section on "social and cultural responses". Certainly there's nothing in the lead saying that evolution is something that "many believe", as if it were merely a belief system and not a scientific fact. NightHeron (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Inserting "many believe" here would indeed be WP:WEASEL. On Wikipedia we aim to maintain a strict separation between fact and opinion, and there is no legitimate dispute about whether white privilege is a fact. Generalrelative (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

RS say it is real, my own experiance says it is real. So both wp:v and wp:or say it is real. So no we should not weasle word it.14:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

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.

Study of the concept

The references to Invisible Knapsack should note that Mackintosh's observations were made about the USA. She is clear about this in the piece. There are numerous other examples of this 'national' bias, as this page overall has the blindspot of projecting what happens in the USA as universal. Certainly the places of research should be noted. This is an essential qualification. Thank you. In good faith, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see the archives for debate over the "this only applies to the USA" arguments. That's a non-starter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have looked through some of the archives and I see that 'euro-centrism' has been noted as an issue. Not sure how that's different than USA-centrism. I am also not saying this only applies in the USA, I am saying that to be accurate and factual in an encyclopedic manner we need to note that the USA is not the world and that location of the research should be reflected. In the case I mentioned, the author is clear that she is discussing conditions in the USA. Suggesting this magically applies to the rest of the world is WP:SYNTH WP:ORIGINAL. Noting the place specificity that an author does is the truly international perspective. Yours from outside the USA, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggesting this magically applies to the rest of the world

So, yeah, you're trying the exact same trick others have in the past. Not gonna work. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Playing victim on a pretty cut and dry research issue doesn't benefit the readers, nor the project of Wikipedia at large. Why don't we deal with this encyclopedically and not conspiratorially? If you have an educated, cited response to my comments that would be a good start (i.e. White Privilege is a global phenomenon that can be analysed in the USA and then applied to every corner of the globe, because of x, y, and z.). Or better yet, prove me wrong with citations. As it stands this article gets a lot of criticism and probably for a reason. So take it in good faith, unless of course you're not here operating in WP:GOODFAITH? There couldn't be any WP:SOAPBOX could there? Any WP:LAWYERING? No WP:SYNTH or WP:ORIGINAL? No, no, no, only tricks, your fatigue, and vague suggestions of consensuses past. Slow clap man. Look forward to any fresh voices out there on this utterly mundane suggestion. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Have a (re?)read of the seminal work, it might prove helpful. Please note the the conditions of White Privilege in the United States are mentioned 4 times, African-Americans and Native Americans are also mentioned once each, and that the author Peggy McIntosh was born and raised in the USA and speaks of and analysises her life long experiences growing up there. No other countries are discussed. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What are you even advocating for? Stating in the article where certain research was published? Am I understanding that right? ––FormalDude talk 00:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Not where it was published... not sure why that would matter? (Enlighten me if it would)... but where it was 'conducted'. I am advocating for, in the specific case of the Invisible Knapsack in the Study of the Concept section, something noting that McIntosh's observations were made about the USA, as she states in the foundational work. After thinking about it, it isn't much different than noting that the starting point for this critique was a feminist one of Male Privilege which allowed her and others to make further observations about conditions of advantage and dominance – racial ones in this case – specifically in the US. Or maybe even more simply, it is akin to including a date on a paper, as that allows additional context. Again, I see no controversy. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hesperian Nguyen: So go ahead and make the edit. WP:BRD. ––FormalDude talk 06:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I see the following was added:

The starting point for this critique was a feminist one of Male Privilege which allowed McIntosh, and others, to make further observations about conditions of advantage and dominance in the US.

This is rather poorly worded in my opinion, and the source makes no mention of feminism. ––FormalDude talk 04:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It makes no sense because it's yet another "this only happens in the USA" argument. HN is arguing that we should call out where the research was conducted in order to frame this as a purely American issue that doesn't exist anywhere else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

White Privilege should be edited to explain this is an opinion and not a fact

no, it’s not just an “opinion” and this thread isn’t the place to discuss general quality issues Dronebogus (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This article should be altered to state it is an opinion and not a fact. This is an opinion of many on the far left and not a fact supported by data. People go to Wikipedia for facts and historical content, not talking points from far left media sites. Please edit this article to state the reality of the slogan and not just one groups ideology. 24.51.204.158 (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC) Do you have any RS to support this? Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC) Please see the multiple discussions on this point in the archives. Consensus is against your assertion that this is simply "an opinion." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC) I understand that multiple discussions with people of the same opinion have come to the conclusion they are right. I also see multiple requests to update the article based on the truth that this is not a fact or real. Its an opinion at best or a slogan at worst. There is no real data that makes this term a fact or true. Wikipedia would be a more believable site if it didnt adopt an ideology to put forth. 24.51.204.158 (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia works via reliable sources and consensus, not random visitors declarations of what is "the truth." Come back when you have an argument based on sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC) After all, a random IP address states that it’s their opinion that this is an opinion, so we can say with certainty that it is in fact an opinion rather than a fact. Until the next random IP address says something else. Jacona (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC) This article will lack all credibility until it acknowledges at the outset that "White Privilege" is a political theory or social narrative originating in the United States. Whatever merits the theory may have, it remains a Theory, not a Fact. Calling it a fact is the encyclopedic equivalent of defining Marxism, Nazism or Conservatism on their own terms too: "Marxism is the answer to exploitation"? "Conservatism is the means to save society from collapse"? "Nazism is the destiny of the Aryans"? No, no and no - Marxism is a socio-economic theory, Conservatism is a political philosophy, Nazism was a 20th Century German political movement. The article introduction needs to change to be brought in line with all similar pages. Observoz (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC) That's how to say "I haven't read anything on this topic." You can start by looking at some of the writings found at this search of Google Scholar. Many of the books talk about how to teach anti-racism and address white privilege. By far the majority of scholars acknowledge that white privilege is a fact in the USA. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC) I might say the same to you. But in any case, to call it a political theory is not to say it may also contain factual elements, but it is to acknowledge that it is a contested ideological space, as you already acknowledge in your remarks by using the word "majority". As far as I can tell, the quality of this article is beyond repair, as it reads like a poorly argued and rambling high school essay - about as coherent as an unabridged edition of Xi Jinping Thought. Observoz (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2022

I would like to add a source to the "white privilege pedagogy" detailing the concept of "privileged vulnerability" from the article "Communication Is... Privilege." "Privileged vulnerability" is a concept the author uses to teach how to recognize privilege. This is what I would add verbatim:

Scholars in the field of communication studies have forwarded the concept of "privileged vulnerability" as a way for teachers to interrogate white privilege in the classroom. Scholars argue that the privileged position of the classroom and acknowledging said privilege helps to facilitate an open dialogue about the various privileges individuals carry with them, including and particularly whiteness. Campbellsupe (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done. From the point of view of someone that did not read the article, it's unclear in your text what you mean "privileged vulnerability". Also, is it an idea by one person or has support from many different people? See WP:UNDUE. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2022 (2)

I would like to add a source to the "whiteness unspoken" section that elaborates on how whiteness remains unspoken by serving as the invisible center of discourse. Here is what I would add verbatim:

Communication scholars have argued that one reason whiteness remains unstated is that whiteness functions as the presumed and invisible center of discourse. In this way, whiteness remains unspoken because appeals to a universal subject function as appeals to whiteness. However, it is only by making this center visible that white privilege can be interrogated and whiteness itself can be particularized. Campbellsupe (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done This proposed text has the same problem as the last one. It gives the viewpoint of one primary source (in this case from 27 years ago). Did their viewpoint have any impact, did others endorse it, is it significant enough to include, per WP:UNDUE? NightHeron (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: I chose to add this one in right when you replied because it's a lot better than the last one. Both author are subject matter experts, and the article itself is peer reviewed. With WP:INTEXT, I think it's usable. The rest of the section summarizes other primary sources written by experts too. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, but overall I don't think the added text improves the article. It's not written in a style that's meaningful to non-academics (or even to many academics). For example, "appeals to a universal subject function as appeals to whiteness. It is only by making this center visible that white privilege can be interrogated and whiteness itself can be particularized". It reads like a parody of academic jargon. NightHeron (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Took a second look and I agree; I took out a lot of the unnecessary mumbo jumbo. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2023

The subject very subjective and politicized. The opposing viewpoint is presented as ‘conservative opposition’ but makes no mention that it is a leftist idea based on incorrect facts 98.173.225.22 (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2023 (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. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Revision suggested

I propose to revise this statement:

"have been surprised by the recent opposition from right-wing critics since approximately 2014."

To this statement:

"have been surprised by the recent opposition from critics since approximately 2014."

The reason is that the current statement violates Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. All opinions, including all interpretations from scholars, academics, and critics, have an equal level of credibility and should be treated equally. Statements of historical facts or findings arising from observational or experimental scientific research, unlike opinions, are facts, not opinions, and facts have higher credibility. Neutral means equal treatment. For a neutral point of view, the feasible option is to not assign a political affiliation to any opinion in this article. The alternative neutral option is to assign a political affiliation (right-wing, left-wing) for every source of every opinion in the article, and that is not feasible. Thanks. TMM53 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

All opinions, including all interpretations from scholars, academics, and critics, have an equal level of credibility and should be treated equally. That's not what WP:NPOV says. It says that opinions should be given due weight. That means that if a scholar, academic, or critic advocates for a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by consensus of scientists, that opinion does not get equal treatment to the mainstream view. Anti-vaxx, climate change denial, racial pseudoscience, etc. all have academic and other supporters, but they do not have the same credibility as consensus opinions of scientists.

Also, it seems that "right-wing" is an accurate characterization of those who deny the existence of white privilege. NightHeron (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You are asking for a false balance. Mainstream scholarly views should be given the most credibility. All viewpoints are NOT equal. Wikipedia's neutrality policy does not support your stance. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Some issues

I just read "white English speakers are privileged in their ability to gain employment teaching English". This is very unclear. Is this comparing white native speakers with non-white? Because if this is about native speakers versus non-native speakers, then this would be a totally different issue. This is badly written, at minimum. Ąnd frankly, as someone leaving in Korea, I am pretty sure this is not limited to Japan, but can be generalized to Asia. And moving to Korean section, the middle paragraph about beauty standards seems to have nex to zero releance to "white privilege", it's about skin whitening. Pretty ORish to have this here, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)