Talk:White privilege/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

An Empirical Assessment of Whiteness Theory: Hidden from How Many

"This paper employs data from a recent national survey to offer an empirical assessment of core theoretical tenets of whiteness studies. Using survey items developed explicitly for this purpose, we analyze three specific propositions relating to whites' awareness and conception of their own racial status: the invisibility of white identity ; the understanding (or lack thereof) of racial privileges; and adherence to individualistic, color-blind ideals. Consistent with whiteness theories, we find that white Americans are less aware of privilege than individuals from racial minority groups and consistently adopt color-blind, individualist ideologies. However, we also find that whites are both more connected to white identity and culture as well as more aware of the advantages of their race than many theoretical discussions suggest. We then combine these results to estimate that 15 percent of white Americans exhibit what we call " categorical whiteness, " a consistent and uniform adherence to the theoretical tenets that are the focus of this body of theory. We conclude by suggesting that these findings provide the basis for a more nuanced, contextualized understanding of whiteness as a social phenomenon.'[1] downloadable at [2].

“American” as a Proxy for “Whiteness”: Racial Color-Blindness in Everyday Life

"This article discusses racial color-blindness as it relates to a modern strategy used by both Whites and People of Color (POC) to mask their discussions of race and privilege. People who endorse racial color-blindness tend to believe that race should not matter and currently does not matter in understanding individuals’ lived experiences. Therefore, racially color-blind individuals use strategies to justify their racial privilege and racist beliefs and attitudes. One such strategy is to use the term “American” as a proxy for “White” in describing instances of White privilege as norms and to hide discussions of race more generally. Study 1 findings show that there are many different socially constructed definitions for the term American. Study 2 findings reveal differences in definitions for American depending on an individual’s race and generational status."[3] Doug Weller talk 17:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The second paper is rather fringe - it only has 13 citations. What's worse, it relies on rather irrelevant samples for its "studies" -i.e.: "Study 1 –Social Construction of “American”. Participants discussed ways of defining American concepts in 1 of 15 focus groups. Each focus group included three to five participants."Thematic analyses revealed many different definitions and socially constructed uses of the term American. They varied from being very fact-based,to include those born in the United States and those who are U.S. citizens to more socially constructed uses that included only Blacks and Whites or Whites only. Even more varied was the use of American to mean all those who are from a racial/ethnic group different from the participant. For example, a Filipino American may perceive all those who are not Filipino to be American" --ColumbiaXY (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

As the topic of this article is undoubtedly controversial, in the interest of full transparency I believe that a "criticism" subsection section should be added to the article in order to describe countervailing viewpoints that exist. To not do so is to render the article misleading, as it presents the topic of the article as criticism-free when the opposite is true. Whether the criticisms are warranted or whether the individuals who are making the criticisms are qualified to weigh in on the topic is another question entirely, and should be addressed in a separate section such as "responses to criticisms" or by other means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenwiliams (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A

WP:CSECTION, there are many reasons Wikipedia articles should avoid such section, even if some editors think the concept is controversial for some reason. Framing this as criticism vs. response would not solve these issues, and would make the situation worse, as it would introduce false balance. Grayfell (talk

) 01:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell -- To fail to include a criticism section renders the article more misleading than it would be with such a section included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenwiliams (talk • contribs) 01:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

biased. In my opinion, neutrality on this subject is unattainable at this time, so I won't waste time editing here. Good luck to you.Jacona (talk

) 13:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The reason the subject of a critique section keeps coming up is because the article is so often considered biased. Last time this came up I was told it was not necessary because there was a "contrasting concepts" section - but even this has now been deleted. Keith Johnston (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems ridiculous to me there is no Criticism section but there is a "response to criticism" section (e.g. white fragility). Wikipedia should be an unbiased source, not propaganda for only one side of the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.170.63 (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems a valid question.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally frowned upon by Wikipedia and should be avoided where possible in preference to integrating criticism into other relevant sections. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yet we have A "response to criticism" section, that seems to me little different.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not opposed to restructuring the article such that these responses remain in other relevant sections. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Problem is we still would have reactions to statements we do not give.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Do we though? Or do we have an asymmetrical situation where legitimate academics have felt pressured to respond to

WP:FRINGE critics? In that case it'd be fully possible to have due and notable responses to critics but not to include the "critics" themselves. Simonm223 (talk

) 14:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

We still need to know what they are responding to "They are wrong you know, ohh yes they are" is not much of a refutation of someone point and neither is "Its just white folks whining".Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the most constructive thing to do is to present the critique you would like to see included, backed by rs and then we can debate it. Otherwise this discussion is rather abstract. Keith Johnston (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I just said I think the question is fair, and then explained why.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you.Keith Johnston (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that that misunderstands what that section is. It isn't "a response to criticisms of the concept of White Privilege", it's part of the applications in critical theory that uses the concept to explain resistance to discussion of racial issues more broadly (even where the term isn't used), as well as backlashes against racial equality. I think the solution is just to remove the section header, since it's separating out parts that aren't really separate from the list of applications. --Aquillion (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@

A reasonable person would be more likely than not to believe, after reading this entry, that there is less criticism of white privilege than actually exists in reality. This is a problem. We now must think about how to remedy this problem. Until we can agree to a remedy - whether a banner of some kind or some other solution, many of which have been proposed previously - I believe a banner should be placed on this article. It is simply not the case that more cannot be done to improve the neutrality of this article. Hence, a discussion needs to be ongoing as to what these improvements should look like and how they should be implemented. But in the meantime, as previously mentioned, it is only reasonable that a banner of some kind be put at the top of the article to call readers' attention to this fact.Allenwiliams (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)— Allenwiliams (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The only reasonable solution is to include the critique that is backed up by rs. I would encourage you to make some suggestions and review the proposed critique suggested by other editors. Keith Johnston (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

We generally discourage banners until after a discussion of specific improvements has been completed. Please present RSes that you believe are being ignored. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (help!

) 23:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@ guy -- Did you not read what I wrote previously? This cannot be allowed to turn into a situation where the onus is on those who disagree to provide sources rebutting the notion that white privilege is somehow a social fact (which it plainly is not), putting you, conveniently, in the position of dictating which sources are "legitimate" and which are not. The onus is on the proponent of the claim to put forward evidence establishing that the claim is, in fact, true. This is literally always the way it works. In absolutely no situation is the claim ever just assumed to be true and the burden shifts to those who disagree that its true to rebut it. -Allenwilliams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.192.20 (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The claim has been established in the article based on multiple

to adhere to a neutral point of view by a consensus of experienced editors. So at this point, challenging the facts & neutrality of the article requires new sources to rebut the facts as stated. Therefore, your comments about "shifting the burden" are misplaced. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

15:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The article has been edited countless times in the recent year alone and the claims about its current

neutral point of view should be re-evaluated especially in the light of overwhelming evidence pointing to the contrary (evidence submitted on this talk-page by several editors).--ColumbiaXY (talk

) 05:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Your logical fallacy is: begging the question. Guy (help!) 15:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

-sche, good job finding the new image. Do we need more? How about File:Whites_Only.jpg, File:New Orleans Public Service Streetcar Bench with Colored Segregation Sign 01.jpg, File:1943 Colored Waiting Room Sign.jpg, File:Boston Protester White Privilege.jpg? Mathglot (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I sought out an image showing both a white and a colored thing (fountain, waiting room, etc) in the same image or collage so the higher quality of the one for whites could be seen, as this seemed more illustrative to me than a photo showing only a colored thing. A thing reserved to "whites only" could also be illustrative, but despite the name File:Whites_Only.jpg actually depicts a "non-whites only" bench. I don't object to including any of those photos, but others may want to weigh in as to whether they're relevant to white privilege per se as opposed to, say, Racism. (The Boston protestor's photo is already used in the article.) -sche (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I do object on the bass that what is displayed is racism. Lets not confuse readers that white privilege is the same as racism. if it is we may as well marge the articles Keith Johnston (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's not identical. I've seen it described as "the legacy and cause of racism"a good discussion of the relationship and white privilege as the cornerstone of racism.[4]. That's just a couple, there are more and no doubt better analyses of the relationship between the two. That close relationship is why an image showing racism can be useful, especially one that clearly shows the difference between the facilities as the present one does. It occurs to me that this subject is a good example of where political science and sociology are both key to its understanding - my Yale years are long ago but my study of both subjects there still is useful. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

“ Equally there have been many editors whose assumption has been that because they reject the concept of white privilege, so it is not a thing, and they will not accept any other answer. Newsflash: white privilege is a thing.”

This is your opinion, and wikipedia is not a place for your opinions. White privilege is not a widely accepted fact, and you must demonstrate that it is universally accepted before treating it as such. No matter how strongly you believe in it, your personal beliefs are irrelevant. Librairetal (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

An editor has condensed this section.

I would like to argue that the wording of this article is very biased, I will start by agreeing that under certain definition white privilege does exist, not everywhere but it does exist in many (or all?) white majority countries, however the way this is represented in Wikipedia is highly biased when it is, I believe, common knowledge that people tend to give certain favoritism to people of their own skin color, culture, language, ethnicity or race, for various reasons, relatability being among the chief reasons, and I think this is absolutely undeniable fact, easily proved, and pretty much common knowledge - and while such favoritism does exist there is no article called "Black privilege" or any other race based privilege article on Wikipedia, neither is it noted in this Wikipedia article which attempts to present white privilege as something unique among white people when that is clearly not the case. I would challenge anyone to go to Africa, middle east or Asia (and I mention this as an argument) and start to speak about privilege of native race there and see where that leads to, for the reason that people generally know what it would lead to (the person or group being immediately shut down/incarcerated etc.) there are almost no examples of that thereof. I could cite multiple non-white majority countries with extremely strict immigration laws, government dictated strict maximum quotas for foreigners working in there together with very difficult naturalization laws, and history of oppressing citizens of other races or ethnicity effectively working as extreme privilege and favoritism for native race/ethnicity proving that such privilege is non exclusive to white people. This article presents itself as something describing the order and norms of contemporary world while it would fit much more with colonial age, where multiple, but hardly all and not majority of White people countries were colonizing many non-white people countries and (usually) enforcing privilege for themselves, however it was neither majority of white people countries, nor is there any proof that it was approved by majority of citizens of those countries as they were generally authoritarian monarchies, and none of the people responsible are alive today, neither was it only white people engaged in this behavior. Lastly if white people are exceptionally privileged, racist etc. then why do we have more than million people immigrating to United Stated every year (still a majority white people country) out of their free will with white people being only a small share of them (see https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2019/06/03/facts-on-u-s-immigrants/ which cites 13.2% of Canadian and European immigrants in 2017), isn't that contradictory to the tone and message of this article that white privilege is an oppressive and offensive system exclusive to white people countries designed to target and under-privilege minorities, if those people were somehow unaware of the white privilege then why do we see so little return migration? I mention U.S. in specific because the article appears to be very Americocentric which is not mention in the heading (another bias). Walther st (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. Please check out WP:NOR. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC) I am not exactly new to Wikipedia but I previously did my edits without account, I am aware of no-original research, but there isn't much authoritative research I can present when quoting any view that significantly deviates from the current article wording would probably be dismissed as far-right, and I am not sure how that invalidates any of my arguments regarding my claim that the article is biased and I think it is fair to state this in the talk section. I think this article is clearly not neutral point of view. I will quote WP:YESPOV Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia I think the article is in conflict with "strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another". If we base this article purely on academic research of white-privilege it is bound to have left-wing bias which is well known for it's particular take on and obsession with white privilege all the while ignoring all other forms of racial bias and privilege. I quote research about left-wing bias in academia: https://www.adamsmith.org/research/lackademia-why-do-academics-lean-left Individuals with left-wing and liberal views are overrepresented in British academia. Those with right-wing and conservative views are correspondingly underrepresented. Around 50% of the general public supports right-wing or conservative parties, compared to less than 12% of academics. Conservative and right-wing academics are particularly scarce in the social sciences, the humanities and the arts. There are whole studies dedicated to 'white privilege' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_studies ) with no alternative research regarding any other racial privilege. So we are bound to run into bias if we base this article purely on academic research, and as far as I know Wikipedia is pretty much banning any right leaning non-academic source with no such effect on left leaning sources, still I believe there should be ways to improve this article and uphold the intended spirit of Wikipedia as free and neutral online encyclopedia and make this article more balanced including making a section for criticism, as for individual lines from the article with strong bias then there are far to many to quote, as they make up majority of the whole article. Walther st (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Also note this, you quote WP:NOR , however it specifically mentions: " (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)" And I did not do any edits in the article (and of course I can't) nor made any specific original research based suggestions. Walther st (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC) The sources you're referring to as "left leaning" aren't necessarily so . A lot of right-wing cranks who attempt to use a vaneer of academic standing to promote their political claims try to present academia as being in a political dichotomy. Have you considered the prospect that it isn't an entire field and the majority of editors here that's biased, it's your selection of sources that are the problem? Have you read WP:GEVAL? Ian.thomson (talk ) 00:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC) The page you quote about 'reality liberal bias' leads to some joke so I am not sure how that is relevant to this discussion. I am reading very wide selection of sources both left wing and right wing, also you did not even try challenge any of my specific claims so I am not sure how you are contributing to this section. Walther st (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Here's a specific academic research that even babies prefer people of their own race: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566511/ which completely confirms my point that certain favoritism towards own race isn't white people specific why can't that be added to article for balance? Walther st (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC) That source doesn't say anything about white privilege. Are you sure you read WP:SYNTH if you had, and if you had read that, you'd know you're wasting your time sharing sources like that. We don't need to challenge your claims, because you're not presenting relevant WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Ian.thomson (talk ) 00:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Again I did not requests any specific edit, but challenged the neutrality of the article, I think the article deserves 'not neutral point of view' banner like this: The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message) I am not sure you read my previous answer, according to the very policy section you state I am free to share any original research in the talk section so I am not sure where you are coming from, it specifically states this: " (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)" Walther st (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Also I did not say that it disproves 'white privilege' on the contrary it confirms it, but the study also confirms my argument that favoritism towards own race isn't something unique to white people, which helps to prove my point that the whole article is not neutral point of view. Walther st (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC) You've not demonstrated that the article does not neutrally represent mainstream academia, though. You've only mentioned the prospect that it excludes partisan sources ( cited unrelated sources. Ian.thomson (talk ) 00:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC) As I noted earlier there is a very strong left wing bias in academia which is associated with bias towards topics such as 'white privilege', so I did not dispute that the article is relatively in-sync with the academia, however even on this level I think it is not neutral, there are various studies that would challenge the prevalent tone in this article - that is, that is that whites are not experiencing racism and only benefiting from existing system and that only whites are giving favoritism to their own race, see for examples this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3164804/ which notes the negative effects of white privilege (none of which are mentioned in this one sided article): Bowser and Hunt’s (1981) edited text entitled Impacts of Racism on White Americans presented a collection of scholarly writings that underscore the negative consequences of dominant group membership for White people, including inauthenticity (Terry, 1981), negative emotions (Karp, 1981) and maladjustment due to racism (Pettigrew, 1981). The specific phrase costs of racism to Whites was conceived by Kivel (1996) and is defined as negative psychosocial consequences that Whites experience as dominant group members in a system of societal racial oppression. There are also articles on bias in academia: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27905455 which links to: https://www.nature.com/articles/540007a I quote: It is crucial to fight discrimination in all its forms, but it is unhelpful to exclude conservative voices from debate. I think the main problem with this article is current prevalent news source bias in Wikipedia where right leaning news sources are excluded giving an actual privilege to left leaning news sources as well as existing left wing bias in academia which is rarely disputed, in fact you admitted this bias by linking to an url that says "Reality_has_a_well_known_liberal_bias". The only dispute here is whether left wing or right wing better represents reality, perhaps it's neither and Wikipedia shouldn't be giving any privilege to left leaning sources. Walther st (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Your comments include a large number of unsupported assumptions. It also appears you have not carefully read the sources you are proposing. This source does not support what you are implying. It is building on previous work to say that racism negatively affects white people specifically because they are in a "dominant" position. In other words, this study accepts the existence of white privilege and identifies it as significant to white people's behavior and well-being. Where does the article say otherwise? Have any reliable sources ever denied this? How would you have us properly summarize this WP:PRIMARY source? If you have a specific point, make it succinctly, and use reliable source which are specifically about white privilege. It might be convenient to assume sources will be dismissed because they are "right-wing" but this is simplistic at best and defeatist at worst. You need to propose changes based on what reliable sources are actually saying, not merely what you wish they were saying. So far, you have not done any of the work needed to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Regarding your a few cranks opposing the near totality of scholars in relevant fields. Ian.thomson (talk ) 02:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC) I mentioned about ten times that I agree that 'white-privilege' exists, so why are you trying to imply otherways? This article opens with "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people", no-where does it mention other-ways, the article I mentioned notes several negative impacts of 'white-privilege' towards whites. This article is one sided, not neutral, and paints a false picture of white-privilege being the only form of racial privilege in existence, that whites only benefit from it, and that there no anti-white bias or discrimination in US or elsewhere see this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6438165/ This association was also observed in White women with higher SES, which was an unexpected finding. Several explanations may exist for this finding (e.g., Apfelbaum, Norton, & Sommers, 2012; Craig & Richeson, 2017; DiAngelo, 2011; Norton & Sommers, 2011; Wilkins & Kaiser, 2013). Of late, a growing number of Whites in the U.S. have been reported as perceiving an increase in Anti-White bias and racial discrimination toward their group (see report byNNational Public Radio, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, & Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 2017; Norton & Sommers, 2011). In addition, these perceptions have been linked with poor health outcomes in Whites (e.g., Peterson, Matthews, Derby, Bromberger, & Thurston, 2016. Also this research about racism towards whites in Australia challenges that notion: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07256868.2018.1459516 Walther st (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Do you really mean "towards whites"? Or perhaps "against? I note that the lead sentence says "...an event where they perceived a white Australian had been the target of racism". The key word there is "perceived". It doesn't mean it actually existed. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Again see this: https://www.people-press.org/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/ Studies have found that majority of people with higher education in U.S. hold liberal views, and modern science and academy is absolutely dominates by people with higher education and that the gap is increasing. Also note this study which found that most professors are liberal (i.e. left wing): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257661887_Why_Are_Professors_Liberal Walther st (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC) In reply to 'HiLo48' - please look up the meaning of the word 'towards', one common meaning is 'directed at'. The use of the more neutral wording 'perceived' in the study is because as I said, and cited sources which confirm it, that academia is dominated by people with left-wing/liberal political views, so anything perceived as promoting existence of 'anti-white racism' can by perceived as actual racism towards non-whites, people who have been judged as racist have been booted out of science and academy time and time again, not so with left leaning professors please look up Noel Ignatiev, in fact he pretty much advocated for "abolishing white race" whether it meant genocide or something else is open to interpretation but that's a fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Ignatiev#%22New_abolition%22_and_the_%22white_race%22 In answer to 'Ian.thomson' - I am not sure how you are contributing to discussion by citing a joke, and using loaded language with words like 'right-wing cranks': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language Walther st (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC) It appears that you are arguing against a vague position that nobody seems to be holding, and you have not explained how the article "paints" this supposedly biased picture. Most of the sources you have thrown against the wall do not mention "white privilege" at all, so your point is lost and you give us the impression that you are not listening to what we are saying to you. Again, this should be based on reliable sources, and for every specific claim, those sources should be about "white privilege" in clear terms. An encyclopedia article about an academic term is going to rely on academic sources. Balance does not mean we include less-reliable sources simply to placate a hypothetical group or ideology. That would not be balance, it would be false balance. We go by reliable sources, and if those sources share a specific viewpoint, that is not necessarily a problem, and not one Wikipedia can solve. Grayfell (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC) I could quote endless articles that would explain how wrong this article is, but they would all be dismissed as "far-right propaganda and conspiracy theories" while at same time there are actual professors in academia advocating for "abolishing" of white race and they are perfectly accepted. Say this: https://quillette.com/2019/05/23/what-does-teaching-white-privilege-actually-accomplish-not-what-you-might-think-or-hope/ quote: What accounts for this? One possibility is that social liberals are internalizing white-privilege lessons in a way that flattens the image of whites, portraying all of them as inherently privileged. So if a white person is poor, it must be his or her own fault. After all, they’ve had all sorts of advantages in life that others haven’t. When we talk about racial inequality, it is important to understand that we’re often talking about structural or society-wide averages, not the status of all individuals at all times. It is true, for instance, that African Americans are disproportionately impacted by poverty. That means a higher percentage of African Americans live in poverty as compared to whites. But the largest number of individuals in the United States who live in poverty are white. We can’t, and we shouldn’t, assume anything about any individual’s life solely based on his or her race, or based on larger facts about racial inequality. Racism exists, of course, and its impact is disproportionately felt by society’s minority populations. I have personally spent a decent chunk of my reporting career documenting this. But the fact that disparate treatment is inflicted on racial minorities doesn’t prove the existence of an all-encompassing pattern of white privilege. “If you’re white, chances are seeing a police officer fills you with one of two things: relief or gratitude,” writes one advocate of a privilege-centric worldview. But around half of the people who are killed every year by U.S. police officers are white. True, police violence falls disproportionately on ethnic minorities, especially African Americans. But if you’re white and you’ve been abused by a police officer, your individual experience may be just as painful as that of a black person who’s suffered similar abuse. If we extend the logic of privilege beyond the issue of race, it’s easy to see the flaws with this approach. We know, for instance, that 93 percent of people in U.S. federal prisons are men. In nearly every part of the criminal justice system, in fact, men on average have it worse than women do. But does that then mean we should be discussing “female privilege”? Would it be beneficial to the men behind bars for women to proclaim awareness of their “privileged” status? I literally can't afford to waste any more time on this, you say I am "arguing from vague position that nobody seems to be holding" this talk page is literally full of people alleging bias in the article, I disproved nearly every point that was thrown at me including with citing actual research, all I met was trying to shut me down by throwing policies against me that do not exist for talk page, attempting to nit pick at my words and failing even there, not disproving any of my actual points, trying to use jokes and loaded language to disprove my points, ignoring everything else I said per convenience, this is not a honest, good-faith WP:GF discussion by any margin and just a waste of time for everybody. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_privilege#Criticism_Subsection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_privilege#POV_banner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_privilege#Change_the_main_definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_privilege#Factual_or_Theoretical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_privilege#The_article_as_a_whole_is_insufficiently_neutralWalther st (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Your last post makes it abundantly clear that you cannot consider the prospect that you might be wrong. Between that, multiple experienced users pointing out your failures in understanding our policies, and you starting to understand that you are wasting time (not just yours but everyone's), it's best that you find something else to do. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC) I agree with Walther st (talk) to the extent one of the criticisms of white privilege in reliable sources is that it relies on academics who are biased or suffer from group-think. This should be included because it is in the reliable sources. I welcome specific proposals for changes. Keith Johnston (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

For example, the sentence I quoted above should really read something like “According to Critical Race Theory, European colonialism, involving some of the earliest significant contacts of Europeans with indigenous peoples, was crucial”. As it stands right now, we go from speaking ABOUT the ideas of CRT theorists, to actually using their voice. We need to make clear who’s position this is. Right now it is written as an established fact. We have sources in which CRT theorists explain their opinions, and make a case for them, but no source that this is an objective, widely accepted phenomena. The burden of proof is on those claiming that this is a fact that we must just accept. We don’t have a source for that. We just have sources in which CRT theorists explain what white privilege is, but we’re begging the question if we use this as evidence for the existence of the phenomena. What we are lacking are sources that demonstrate this to be fact. Otherwise the article needs a number of “according to” xyz lines. The article is mostly acceptable, but then we get opinionated and unsubstantiated claims like:

“White privilege functions differently in different places. A person's white skin will not be an asset to them in every conceivable place or situation. White people are also a global minority, and this fact affects the experiences they have outside of their home areas.”

Here we are not talking about the concept of white privilege, as an academic subject or tool, and are instead looking at history/society through a lens of white privilege. Even if you believe strongly that this accurately reflects reality, it is not appropriate for a wikipedia article, anymore than a religious person writing matter-of-factly about their faith, however strongly they believe in it. Librairetal (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Why are my responses winding up in the wrong thread? Librairetal (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Librairetal (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This article presents “white privilege” as a given, objective fact rather than the fringe theory of academia that it actually is. The article should be about the CONCEPT of white privilege, what it means to those that believe in it, the history of the idea and so on. Instead, by the time we reach the history section, we have abandoned the analysis of the concept, and are treating the phenomena as a given, tracing it back to the colonial (!) period. Past the introduction, it is as though the concept is accepted and then the phenomena is traced backwards through time: in other words, this reads like a white privilege essay, rather than a neutral account of the concept and the people that believe in it/promulgate it.

“ White privilege is a social phenomenon.” - This is inappropriate. White privilege is a concept that aims/claims to explain social phenomenon. Instead, the article is composed as though the “white privilege” is some widely accepted fact.

“ European colonialism, involving some of the earliest significant contacts of Europeans with indigenous peoples, was crucial in the foundation and development of white privilege.” - Again, this shifts from talking about white privilege as an academic hypothesis, and treats it as though it was as universally accepted as gravity. Librairetal (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, what forum is recruiting these guys? Ian.thomson (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the editorial stance a number of editors here have taken - that white privilege is a proven fact, rather than a concept in sociology - is what's causing so many people to complain. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Denial of reality can be discomforting. Let's stick with RS instead of inserting our own opinions. O3000 (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

What about when the RS describes it as a concept,^[1] I can find more throughout the article. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with sticking to RS. I don't agree with your assertion that describing an academic concept in CRT as an academic concept in CRT is "denial of reality." Why the push to declare CRT to be the correct description of society? -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

One must recognize a problem before one can fix it. Of course, there are some that don't want problems that may benefit them fixed. O3000 (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a fine political statement, but it's not an editing guideline for Wikipedia. Not everyone agrees with Critical Race Theorists about what the nature of the problem is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I would encourage those critical of the article to make proposals on how to change it supported by reliable sources. Keith Johnston (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC) (Sorry for the double post, posted this elsewhere by mistake)

For example, the sentence I quoted above should really read something like “According to Critical Race Theory, European colonialism, involving some of the earliest significant contacts of Europeans with indigenous peoples, was crucial”. As it stands right now, we go from speaking ABOUT the ideas of CRT theorists, to actually using their voice. We need to make clear who’s position this is. Right now it is written as an established fact. We have sources in which CRT theorists explain their opinions, and make a case for them, but no source that this is an objective, widely accepted phenomena. The burden of proof is on those claiming that this is a fact that we must just accept. We don’t have a source for that. We just have sources in which CRT theorists explain what white privilege is, but we’re begging the question if we use this as evidence for the existence of the phenomena. What we are lacking are sources that demonstrate this to be fact. Otherwise the article needs a number of “according to” xyz lines. The article is mostly acceptable, but then we get opinionated and unsubstantiated claims like:

“White privilege functions differently in different places. A person's white skin will not be an asset to them in every conceivable place or situation. White people are also a global minority, and this fact affects the experiences they have outside of their home areas.”

Here we are not talking about the concept of white privilege, as an academic subject or tool, and are instead looking at history/society through a lens of white privilege. Even if you believe strongly that this accurately reflects reality, it is not appropriate for a wikipedia article, anymore than a religious person writing matter-of-factly about their faith, however strongly they believe in it. Librairetal (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I support this and the reasons given are valid Keith Johnston (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing non-neutral about the sentence European colonialism, involving some of the earliest significant contacts of Europeans with indigenous peoples, was crucial in the foundation and development of white privilege. It's an indisputable historical fact that European colonialism established social systems in which whites lived privileged lives compared to the "natives". The colonial system was an extremely important early example of a system of white privilege. What's the matter with saying this? Have we ventured through the looking-glass into Trumpotopia where facts are no longer facts? NightHeron (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

“ Have we ventured through the looking-glass into Trumpotopia where facts are no longer facts?” Can we stick to the topic at hand? Second time I’ve been accused of ulterior motives in this thread. If your argument is valid it should stand by itself without the aid of ad hominem.

This article is not about ways that white people have dominated throughout history. Nobody is disputing that. This is an article about a sociological concept, white privilege. It was invented as in the 1970s. It has much broader implications that direct oppression i.e. slavery, colonialism, both of which already have articles. This is an article about a specific academic concept peculiar to the Critical Race Theory school. It should not be written in the “voice” of a CRT theorist. Everybody knows that there was white racist ideology used to try to justify the suppression of Africans in the previous centuries. This is not under dispute and you’re moving the goal posts to make your point.

No, you objected to a specific sentence in the article, and I defended that sentence as a statement of fact. The notion that white people often enjoy privileges as a result of systemic racism was not first noticed by CRT academics. Franz Fanon, Steven Biko, and others wrote about that aspect of racism. And in the 18th and 19th centuries in the South of the US anyone with any sense would know that whites there were enjoying privileges they would not have if it weren't for slavery. There are also plenty of situations today in many countries where whites get some benefits as a result of systemic racism. It shouldn't be necessary to get into a dispute about that. NightHeron (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No, Librairetal (talk) is correct. the conceptualisation of this as 'white privilege' is a product of CRT. RS can show this. Attributing it to CRT is neutral.Keith Johnston (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Keith Johnston, no it's not. It predates CRT and if CRT did not exist white privilege still would. The data is unequivocal on that. Guy (help!) 16:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)