User talk:Mollypitcher

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mollypitcher! Thank you for your contributions. I am Malik Shabazz and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits at White privilege

Hi,

I noticed your recent edits to White privilege. Although I have reverted them, that is emphatically not intended as a comment on the quality of your contribution (which I find to be quite high). I do think that they would be more appropriately placed in other sections of the article, as I stated in the edit summary of my reversion. I would be more than happy to work with you on this, and over the next few days I will try and work some of your content into the other sections of the article; I expect other editors would be happy to help with this as well. Please feel free to message me on my talk page if you have questions, suggestions, comments, or complaints.

I would also like to say "Welcome to wikipedia!"

I hope you find your interactions here to be meaningful and enjoyable.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malik,

Thank you for your welcoming correspondence. I do not agree with your complete reversion of everything that I have written.

I think that the lede I propose --

White privilege (or white skin privilege) has been a topic of increasing discussion and debate since Theodore W. Allen urged, in a 1965 John Brown Commemoration Committee “Call,” that “White Americans who want government of the people, by the people, must begin by first repudiating their white skin privileges and the white ‘gentleman’s agreement’ against the Negro.”[1]

is better than the one your prefer and have re-inserted –

White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to advantages that white people enjoy in many societies beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc)

for the following reasons:

1. My lede suggests there has been “discussion and debate” on the issue of “white privilege” or “white skin privilege.” This is true, and very important. The current lede does not reflect this fact at all.

2. My lede does not make exclusionary assertions as to what “white privilege” is, as the current one seems to do. For example – Allen held that these “white privileges” were related to class struggle, were (and have continued to be) conferred by the bourgeoisie to maintain social control, and were ruinous not only to African-Americans, but also to the class interests of European-Americans. He offered many important writings on this from the 1960s to the early 2000s. You may agree, or disagree, with Allen, but the current asserted definition does not reflect any class aspect of “white privilege.” This is one reason that I think my “lede” suggesting that there has been “discussion and debate” is preferable.

3. My lede provides historical background for the discussion and debate on “white privilege” and my comments lead fairly (and directly) into everything that was said previously in the remainder of the article. In my contribution no one’s previous efforts were deleted.

4. The lede you re-inserted refers to “white skin privilege” as an advantage that white people enjoy. However, Allen argues that “white race” privileges were conferred on Europeans’ even before they were “white” -- as a central part of the process of “the invention of the white race.” He also argues that two main ideological props of white supremacism among European-Americans are the arguments that “racism is innate” and that “white workers” “benefit” from “white skin privileges” – both of these arguments serve to undermine struggle against white supremacy. Because of such differences in understanding of “white privilege” (and whether you agree or disagree with what Allen or others say), I again emphasize that the lede should reflect that there has been “discussion and debate.”

Finally, rather than deleting everything I have contributed, I think a better way to proceed is, as follows –

At this point, keep my contributions as they were offered (there is really much important information there for people interested in “white privilege” or “white skin privilege.”

I think what I offered adds considerably and concretely to discussion of “white privilege” and “white skin privilege” and that it provides useful and important sources where people can find out more information.

Like you, “I would be more than happy to work with you” and other editors on this. I hope you will get back to me.

With all best wishes,

Molly Mollypitcher (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Molly. Thank you for your contribution to the white privilege article. I think that your additions were good, and that we can incorporate them into the article. In my opinion, the lead section does warrant a mention of Allen, but there was a level of detail there that would fit better in the 'History of the concept' section. Our manual of style has some guidelines about what to include in lead sections here. I think the previous opening paragraph, while perhaps flawed in some particulars, did a better job of conveying a definition to readers unfamiliar with the concept. I think a good way to move forward here would be to start a thread on the talk page proposing specific changes. Cheers, Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 17:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gobonobo,

Thank you for your correspondence.

Allen is a pioneer of "white privilege" and "white skin privilege" analysis and one of the 20th century's major writers on race and class. His historical work and analysis should be central to any discussion of "white skin privilege." In what was up there, it was not.

Also, there are differences in understanding of "white privilege" and "white skin privilege" and I don't think this is reflected in the current lede that you put back. Allen's insights on the class struggle and the social control aspects and origin of "white privileges" are extremely important and one gets no sense of these issues in the current lede and its "definition" (your word) of "white skin privileges."

I would encourage you, if you are not familiar with Allen, to read some of his work.

Finally -- I am not sure how "to start a thread on the talk page proposing specific changes" -- I am not even sure how to get to the talk page -- that is why I am writing here. Perhaps you can help on this.

With all best wishes,

Molly

Here's a link to the talk page - Talk:White privilege. Talk pages for any article can be accessed at the top of the page; there should be a tab right next to 'Article' that reads 'Talk'. I want to be sure that we're not talking across each other. Concerns that I brought up were not related to the content or veracity of your edits, but rather the placement and succinctness. Your recent additions to the body of the article are excellent and I'm interested in incorporating the changes you've proposed to the lead as well. If you don't beat me to it, I'll go ahead and start a section on the talk page in the near future. Thanks, Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 15:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mollypitcher, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Mollypitcher! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at White privilege

Two editors have reverted you now, and there's a section on the talk page to discuss your proposed additions. If you keep reverting you'll break WP:3RR. Why don't you stop re-adding the material and talk about it instead per WP:BRD? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I (Molly Pitcher) say is factually accurate -- that should be important. The article lead should be more objective and recognize that there is legitimate difference on the issue of "white privilege/white skin privilege." Allen's work is extremely important and has considerable support. His "The Invention of the White Race" (two volumes) was recently republished by Verso Books and has been recognized as a "classic" by leading scholars. I read the comments by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and my submission does "generate interest" as a good lead should. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's comment about "adding random weasel wording" is totally uncalled for.Mollypitcher (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Your recent editing history at White privilege shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]