Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White privilege (sociology)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was I'm closing this one as a keep - it seems to be the preferred solution of the vast majority of respondents, despite the occasionally aggressive discussion. Rebecca 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 White privilege (sociology) 2 (random) Section break A 3 (random) Section break B 4 (random) Section break C

[edit] White privilege (sociology)

White privilege (sociology) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Note: This article was previously nominated for deletion (March 8, 2005). The result of the debate was KEEP.

Note 2: Article was tagged for proposed deletion, on April 12th, 2007. This tag was the subject of an edit war, and a discussion about deletion took place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.1.139 (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Note 3: WP:SNOW

• Delete An OR-ladden POV-pushing mess. Violations of WP:SYNT and WP:RS abound. Jtrainor 08:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • response i think the OR argument has been pretty well shot down. and if there is a POV problem (and i'm not granting that), then do the work and and find counterpoint arguments to balance the article. you can look stuff up on jstor, web of knowledge, or other academic search engines. but you'll find most of the articles and research that are peer reviewed do not differ significantly from the salient points of the entry. --Stoneself 19:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • response for somebody who started this you're not saying much that supports deletion... you can't just state your conclusion. you gotta show how you got there. saying the problems are "abound" isn't saying much. it takes a lot to show that an article with lots of citations is a "mess". the onus is on you. danthrax 12:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm normally a strict inclusionist, and this article has a lot of sources and follows proper format, but one need only take a look at the references section to comprehend that this is an inherently POV subject. As is, I don't think this article can be salvaged - the vast majority of its supporting evidence is gleaned from sources pushing an agenda, and we're here to create an encyclopedia, not showcase individual social platforms with broad support from similar groups and organizations. I didn't even know there was a specific policy against this sort of thing (WP:SYN); just thought it was common sense. Oh well. If you take a good look at it, I'd say it fails on WP:SOAP as well. MalikCarr 11:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The wikipedia should have an article that explains this powerful social force. The article is well sourced with many foot notes. This nomination has no basis. Last time we decided to keep it. This nomination should be withdrawn. futurebird 15:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd examine those sources more closely. The vast majority of them violate WP:RS, and in addition, the further reading section makes it all the more blatantly clear that the intent of this article is to push a POV. Jtrainor 21:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What POV is it pushing? Can you be more specific? futurebird 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jtrainor, there is no such thing as an "intention of an article". Articles don't have intentions. People do. This article is the product of research found by various wikipedians at various times, with no single mastermind or consistent team. The "Further Reading Section" cannot be used to impugn the whole article. 95% of the books and articles from the "Further Reading Section" were added before the last PROD dispute, in April. The article was admittedly flawed back then, but it was preserved because of its clear notability. In a few short months, the article has come a long way, with much better references to support it. If the "Further Reading" section is biased, you are welcome to add or remove any reading material you wish, and then see if anyone objects/reverts. But the Further Reading Section was clearly created by a completely separate group of people than the rest of the article. Your argument, that the Further Reading Section indicates this entire article is a POV exercise, has at least one faulty premise. 67.71.1.139 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: In a word, lol. Of course articles can have intentions - that's what we have WP:NPOV for. You may wish to familiarize yourself with policy a little further. That's just my advice, however. MalikCarr 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is a valid construct in the social sciences and should be maintained and upgraded. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 15:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per Malik Carr's reasons. Chris Buckey 17:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Lack of neutrality can be improved; whether one agrees or doesn't that there is still a "white privilege", there are sociologists who argue that the same is supported by the data gathered. Mandsford 19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as the only reasons given for deletion could be applied to almost any controversial article, such as Christianity. If there are problems with WP:SYN,, or POV, fix them. Murderbike 20:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Doesn't appear possible to me. There aren't problems with WP:SYN or POV, the entire article effectively flunks both. I doubt you could find reliable sources with a NPOV to really support this very well, but if they do exist, it would be better to scrap the article entirely and start over. MalikCarr 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Jtrainor 22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep well sourced article. If it is POV, such problems should be fixed; deletion isn't warrented in this case. Yahel Guhan 00:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I strongly agree with Kukini. This is a valid topic that is discussed in great depth in sociological texts. Deleting, rather than keeping, the article seems to be pushing a POV instead. Danadocus 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps the above editors may wish to review the nominating text and complaints in question. Sources that exist to make a point are not reliable (WP:SYN, WP:RS), and this entire article represents a highly controversial point of view that is not at all neutral (WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP). This is an encyclopedia, not a stage for POV-ridden treatises on society.

As my membership in the AIW should indicate, I only believe in deleting an article when no information would be lost as a result; in other words, only the most rubbish of articles. This one satisfies those criterion just dandy. There are a handful of government studies cited that show some anecdotal and circumstantial evidence, but by and large all sourced references exist to push a specific political point. "Rootsie.com", "Southern Poverty Law Center," "American Mosaic Project," and a variety of op-ed pieces are by no means any sort of reliable sources for information pertinent to a neutral, or maybe even verifiable article, and these are POLICIES that must be upheld. If, as some editors suggest, this is a valid topic that has been widely discussed in sociological texts, perhaps some could be cited that are also from a neutral POV?

At any rate, AfDs are closed based on the merits of the arguments presented, and I've yet to see a good one presented. I mean, we're already going into accusations of POV by the nom and supporters of deletion (see article talk page; how about we use WP:AGF too?) - how long until Godwin's Law is invoked in this discussion, I wonder? MalikCarr 01:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that those sources fail to meet the standard. But, even if they don't, you're saying that none of these are good enough either?

• Harvard Law Review
• Association of American Geographers
• U.S. Department of Justice, (Bureau of Justice Statistics)
• The Urban Institute
• Adult Education Quarterly
• U.S. Census Bureau
• ABC News

futurebird 01:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem with some of those sources, futurebird, because they have nothing to say about white skin privilege.

For example, the DOJ statistics are raw data concerning "Contacts Between Police and the Public", accurately summarized by a WP editor as "Black and Latino American males are three times more likely than white males to have their vehicles stopped and searched by police." But when that sentence is inserted as evidence of white skin privilege, the WP editor is engaging in WP:OR unless she or he can cite a reference that explicitly ties the DOJ data to the concept of white skin privilege. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I just added a whole lot of new info from peer reviewed journals. This subject is HUGE there are so many great sources to choose from. If you have a problem with any sources or how they are represented in a given article, that is more of an issue for the talk page. Not a deletion debate. futurebird 02:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Southern Poverty Law Center" and "American Mosaic Project" are both pretty reliable sources. The only criticism of SPLC has come from actual hate sites. The American Mosaic Project is the Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota. As for "Rootsie.com", I took the liberty of removing it. Something much easier than having a lengthy debate about deleting an entire article. 67.71.1.139 02:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The term "hate site" isn't even well defined. If you'd care to examine some prior AfDs involving racial or social issues such as these, I've seen everything from JPFO to Dr. Ron Paul's presidential campaign site labelled a "hate site" for one reason or other. See my reference to Godwin's Law - the principle is the same in theory. At any rate, with an article that supports the existence of white privilege as fact, how can sources that are rather prominent advocates of multiculturalist and minority empowerment theories and politics possibly be neutral (and thus reliable?). Answer: they can't. MalikCarr 02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And here is a fundamental misunderstanding that may explain your advocacy of this AFD. Sources don't have to be "neutral"; they simply have to be reliable, verifiable, notable, etc. (In fact, ascertaining the "neutrality" of a source would be WP:OR, WP:SYN, etc.) While the wikipedia article has to present the information neutrally, the sources need not be neutral themselves. Just reliable, verifiable, etc. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (WP:SYN - Verifiability). --lquilter 18:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not "hate site" like some wikipedian called it a hate site. But hate site like David Duke. Just because a concept is difficult to define, it doesn't make the concept a work of fiction. At any rate, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a reliable source that has not been contested by any reasonable person or argument. 67.71.1.139 02:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Sociology Department of the University of Minnesota are "advocates of multiculturalist and minority empowerment theories and politics"? Who's got the POV problem? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Bcholmes 01:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Care to add a reason? AFD is not a vote. Jtrainor 02:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The article could use improvements to neutrality and sourcing, but the existence of it is valid and necessary. Saradanger 01:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article describes a subject of serious sociological research. Is it "an inherently POV subject", as MalikCarr asserts? It needn't be. I think this article could avoid perceived POV problems by becoming similar to "new antisemitism", which also discusses a phenomenon whose existence is the subject of debate. The article describes what people mean when they use the phrase "new antisemitism" and it presents the arguments of people who believe that it does or doesn't exist. There's no reason that a similar article couldn't be written about white skin privilege. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Cute, they don't even provide rationales anymore. At any rate...

To the issue of sourcing: I cannot find the sources cited for the Association of American Geographers or the Adult Education Quarterly; you'll have to point them out to me. The ABC News citation was to a discussion between highly POV representatives of both sides of the issue, and could hardly be considered reliable. I've made alotments for the cited Federal sources - these are perfectly legitimate, but the findings therein are presented in a fashion that suggests the existence of the "white privilege", which the reports do not - ergo, WP:OR. As far as the Harvard Law Review is concerned, the referenced article (or book, or periodical, or whatever it is - we don't know) merely makes a claim about an unknown name supporting one facet of this article. We can't even peruse it ourselves for the purposes of verifiability, which is the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm not buying it, sorry.

Moving right along, I have still yet to see much in the way for a sensible reason to include this guideline-and-policy-violation-ridden mess. Furthermore, here's a fun fact to consider: reviewing the userpages and contributions of many of those supporting a Keep vote reveals an interesting trend. It would seem to me that the majority of keep voting editors, based on their project memberships and stated views, would have a vested interest in keeping a page like this in existence, regardless of how well it adheres to policy. Now I'm not going to make any accusations - that would be violating WP:AGF, and I like to keep myself well within the bounds of policy - but considering that there is precedent for editors involved with similar articles to have less weight placed on their contributions to the AfD process... Furthermore, the proposed "User Bill of Rights", which, among other things, guaranteed that editors would have an equal say in matters of determining consensus regardless of affiliation with the subject material was defeated, namely because of that provision. I understand this was done due to Lyndon LaRouche supporters using Wikipedia as a soapbox or something to that effect. Now, I was in favor of the User Bill of Rights, but it seems the project as a whole was not. Food for thought as we continue this debate and examine new voters.

If anyone would like to address further points I have provided, please do. MalikCarr 02:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Harvard Law Review is concerned ... We can't even peruse it ourselves for the purposes of verifiability, which is the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. Here again is another fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. You appear to be confused between material that can be included in and by Wikipedia (freely available, no copyright restrictions, etc.), and material that may be used as a reference for Wikipedia. The criteria for references is "published in a reliable source", not "published in a freely available source". If you, yourself, cannot find Harvard Law Review in a local law depository, that does not mean that it is not a perfectly valid reference. --lquilter 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you responding to me? I provided a perfectly good rationale of why to keep the article. And remember to WP:AGF or I'll have your ass at WP:ANI so fast you won't know what hit you. Have I made myself clear, cutie pie? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because you've taken the name of the current leader of the Black Panther Party doesn't mean you can intimidate me. If anything, you should be the one concerned about good faith, not I. I've reviewed your rationale, and I don't find it convincing. As is, this article doesn't "suggest" that there may or may not be an existence of this social condition, it simply posits that it is, that some people disagree with it, and that twenty highly-POV sources agree. Garbage. MalikCarr 02:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't "taken the name of the current leader of the Black Panther Party" (something you'd know if you knew how to read), nor am I trying to intimidate you. Why would I bother intimidating an editor with 220 mainspace edits, 85% of which are related to anime? When it comes to garbage, you obviously know what you're talking about. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well now, now we see the true colors of certain editors... in any case, regardless of what your intention was behind the naming contrivance, it still stands that it's the name of the current leader of the Black Panther Party - there's a disambiguation page and everything. Giving the rather notable visibility of this Shabazz today (I often see him providing commentary on cable news to issues pertinent to his party), I'm surprised he doesn't have his own article yet. At any rate, thanks for remaining civil through all this - usually, the purveyors of defeated arguments would start challenging the legitimacy of my contributions or reading comprehension at this point. Oh wait... MalikCarr 02:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article is in much better shape than it was 6 months ago when I first came across it. I purged large amounts of the article then (both sides of the argument) because of how bad it was. It was actually an essay written by a student that they put on Wikipedia. Because the article has been making progress, though it may be doing so at a slow pace, I feel that it should be kept. Also, can we please act mature here and not accuse each other of being racist or ignorant. Remember, Wikipedia isn't here to pitch one side or the other, it is here to explain that the term "white privilege" exists and present basic, reproduceable facts and explain each side of the argument. As far as Wikipedia goes, the article isn't supposed to argue for or against any ideology. Chris01720 03:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (random) Section break A

• Strong keep. While WP:SYNT is a problem as written, it's a fixable problem. Moreover, much text refers to the use of WP as a sociological and historical concept, notably by Cheryl Harris, George Lipsitz, Noel Ignatiev, Peggy McIntosh, the American Mosaic Project, and Karen Brodkin. They, of course, are perfectly free to advance a POV which should be described here, with due balance for opposing POVs. Despite the presence of synthetic material, little of it goes beyond the arguments put forward by the cited authors (and the uncited W.E.B. DuBois, whose concept of "the wages of whiteness" is formative for the later White Privilege). So the real problem is appending the attribution above to POV social scientists above the supporting data which they themselves have synthesized at length.--Carwil 02:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The problem is that virtually all of the article is based on those highly POV sources. There comes a point where an article is unsalvageable, and this point has been reached in spades. If I could find twenty published secondary sources that suggested that the Armenian genocide never occurred, would I be entitled to make an article to that? Of course not. Now, perhaps I could contribute to the greater article as a whole, and show that there is a breadth of persons in academic fields that are opposed to the commonly-held viewpoint, but that's another story entirely, and I'm rambling again. MalikCarr 03:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Armenian genocide deniers have problems with being reputable published sources. POV is not necessarily the same thing as reputability. From some people's perspective, the NYT is neutral; to others, it is wildly biased to the right; to others, wildly biased to the left. Whatever its bias may or may not be, it is widely considered to be reputable. This is a fundamental distinction that you fail to appreciate in your comments here. --lquilter 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

To Malik Shabazz and Carwil. I appreciate your good faith efforts to improve this article. If there is one constructive thing that has come out of this deletion debate, it's that it's attracted new wikipedians offering constructive criticism. Should this article be kept, I would appreciate you listing your concerns about the article on the article talk page. As many as possible would be the most helpful. Over the coming weeks, if no one should do anything about those grievances, I will do my best to address them personally. (Starting with your concern that the statistical reports such as the DOJ report do not carry out the final step of asserting "this data supports that white privilege exists".) 67.71.1.139 02:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Lemme see if I can find some sources that talk about "the wages of whiteness" -- I didn't know about that one. futurebird 02:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is a needed article. Fix it, but don't delete it. natalieannettemears 21:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)— natalieannettemears (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong keep. Article should be improved through regular editing. Just because a subject is a magnet for POV-pushing, vandalism or non-sense doesn't make it any less a notable subject. Sadly, edit warring is likely to repel the qualified researchers, writers and experts who would fix concerns. I have no magic wand solution to address those issues but deleting an article about a notable subject is hardly a step in the right direction. If needed admin should freeze last stable version and hopefully (sigh) protracted discussion will net more neutral version or at least slow the POV-pushing (from whatever directions). Benjiboi 03:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Is it notable, though? The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and given the vast majority of sources cited exist to push a specific POV, they're not exactly verifiable. MalikCarr 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point there are way too many sources to even being to bring up the issue of notability. futurebird 03:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. You can't establish notability with so few reliable sources. MalikCarr 03:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since when were peer reviewed journals not reliable sources? futurebird 03:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I took a look at the journal you linked to. You'll have to forgive me if I don't think that the experimental group of college undergraduate students was very representative of the much more widespread social validity of the paragraph you've added. Hell, a majority of the students where I'm enrolled are economic socialists; if the economics department were to have an experiment to determine the economic leanings of students, and then pass it off as being indicative of general social opinions, we'd have a problem. That particular journal might pass the WP:RS test, but the support you're claiming exists from it is both against WP:SYN and WP:OR. And, again, it's just one source against many others. MalikCarr 03:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Notability (in Re: NPOV Sources) Agree that verifiability not truth is important. Google Scholar turns up 5,490 hits and Google Books has 927 of which 27 seem the be titled on the subject. Benjiboi 03:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate how the sources are use here. I'll be glad to do that on the talk page of the article. futurebird 03:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is clearly a concept/belief that is recognized within the social sciences and in particular sociology whatever one's take on it is. We ought to be able to write about it to describe it without necessarily endorsing it the same way we can explain other concepts/beliefs (Marxism, Christianity, etc) that may be susceptible to POV problems. One area to work on with this entry, imo, is to give it a better historical grounding in terms of the history of the idea/term for it. How did this concept come to be used, by who, to encapsulate what beliefs? This likely requires no original research. I believe right now that this move for deletion is inspired by a desire to suppress the idea and knowledge of it. The article clearly needs more work but it's a notable subject that can be written about without POV User:Decepticon —Preceding comment was added at 03:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Suppressing the idea and knowledge thereof? Oh, wonderful. I suppose this makes me and User:Jtrainor the Ministry of Truth now? MalikCarr 03:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This comment isn't really helpful, please stay civil.futurebird 03:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You are so not in a position to make a remark like that. JTrainor and I aren't making threats at other users or calling their academic integrity into question. MalikCarr 03:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

When did I make a threat? futurebird 03:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: When did I say you did? MalikCarr 03:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was what you meant... Well, ok, then why do you think I'm not in a position to make a remark about civility? futurebird 03:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Answer: Perhaps I've overstepped myself. I should have said "your side", e.g. the keep voters, were not in a position to talk about civility. You specifically haven't really said anything particularly uncivil (though I don't like your language on the talk page). However, since you haven't made any mention to those on your side of the argument with blatant WP:CIVIL and AGF problems, it looks like a tacit approval or support. I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from. MalikCarr 06:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Please don't blanket accuse some non-existant 'keep camp' for actions of specific individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.29 (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per the several arguments already offered. I wouldn't accept any of the criticisms as reasons for deletion. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 03:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: So all the flagrant disregarding of policy and guidelines about making neutral, verifiable articles aren't acceptable reasons for deletion? This is sure a wonderful development. MalikCarr 03:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he/she is saying that the flaws in the article are situational, at most. That is, not big enough to support napalming the whole thing. I'd tend to agree. 64.231.195.228 03:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)— 64.231.195.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If less of the article was so heavily rooted in horribly POV-pushing and unverifiable sources, perhaps it could be fixable. As is, the page has been covered by templates since day one of its existence, and I see no reason why it would magically clean itself up at the current iteration. It would be better to torch the whole thing and start over with a fresh set of verifiable, neutral sources. MalikCarr 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that, once again, you might take the opportunity to stay cool. Suggesting to "torch" a page regarding a topic such as this is unnecessarily combative. Regarding your point, the AfD page itself says 'The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.' Perhaps you can supply evidence to verify your expertise at identifying pages that are beyond such salvaging.MatthewDaly 15:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If this phenomenon exists, and the article is well-sourced, deleting it would worsen Wikipedia's systemic bias. --166.121.36.10 03:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: See WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. MalikCarr 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how this policy is relevant. The article isn't about events in the future. Can you explain please? futurebird 04:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It's not Wikipedia's position to speculate on the possible existence of things, as User:166.121.36.10 is suggesting. I realize it's kind of a stretch, but I believe the spirit of that policy is applicable. MalikCarr 04:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying hard to understand your point of view. What is the article "speculating on the possible existence" of? futurebird 04:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Answer: User:166.121.36.10 has described the existence of "white privilege", as currently iterated, to be hypothetical. So, I decide to play by that train of thought and cite the policy on Wikipedia dealing with speculative subjects. If they don't actually exist, Wikipedia isn't supposed to have articles on them that suggest that they do, thus the Crystallball citation. I haven't seen anyone denounce this vote's justification, so I presume that it is supported by other keep-minded voters. MalikCarr 06:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: MalikCarr, have you ever heard the phrase "pick and choose your battles"? I am not arguing for or against your stance on this article, but if I was your life coach right now I would recommend that you back down a little, for the sake of your own reputation. Though you don't mean to (nor do I think you are), you seem to be coming across as an asshole; and whether or not you are correct, it may be wise to just sit this one out. But that's just my opinion. Chris01720 04:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Response: I appreciate your advice and concern, but I don't really believe my reputation has anything to do with it. I've been various denounced as a troll, vandal, leftist, rightist, inclusionist, deletionist, fascist, socialist, and any other bevy of pejorative "-ist" you can imagine. I'll wager this is because I tend to support unpopular positions all across the spectrum of issues - call me a devil's advocate if you will. In any case, I've argued for keeping articles in much worse condition than this one because they show a potential to be workable. The reason why I'm coming down on this one so hard is because I see absolutely none of that. I'm no stranger to this subject, and from what I can tell, it's going to be next to impossible to write a neutral, verifiable article on this subject. As I've mentioned before, this article has been tagged and templated with all sorts of complaints since its inception, and nothing has improved. At this point, it would be better to toast the whole thing than try to fix it (not that anyone has - review the article history if you'd like to examine things more closely). Now, if my take on neutral and reliable sources is incorrect, then I imagine you could draft up a new article to argue the points presented from a neutral perspective. As it is, there's nothing worth salvaging from this article. MalikCarr 04:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is a major subject of academic research. There are voluminous published reliable sources on this topic.--Pharos 04:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I contest both of these points. Would you care to elaborate for us? MalikCarr 04:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Malik, there are links to peer reviewed journal articles and many books with this as the title. I don't know what more you want. Other users have answered this question and you have not explained why their answer was not sufficient. (And could you please answer the questions I asked you in other posts here?)futurebird 04:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There are 5,500 references for "white privilege" on Google Scholar, for one. That's a lot of academic papers, if you ask me.--Pharos 05:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal: WP:GHITS. Moving right along... MalikCarr 05:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar measures published academic papers, not web traffic. Try again.--Pharos 05:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: That's nice. It's still an electronic search engine that displays articles relevant to your search criterion; it doesn't show anything as to the content or merit of those works, just that exist with some relevance to what you've put in. Let's have a little fun with this, shall we? Google Scholar has 142,000 references for "affirmative action," but only 3,930 for "Armenian genocide". Does that make either event more or less important? More or less legitimate? No, it just shows that some areas are more interesting for academics than others. All you've proven by showing a Ghits link is that the topic of "white privilege" has been discussed in academia. Woo hoo. MalikCarr 05:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, it has proven the exact points that I made: that this is a major subject of academic research and there are voluminous published reliable sources on this topic. That's the whole basis of our Wikipedia:Notability guideline. The concept of an "inherently POV subject" is not a part of that guideline at all. Whatever is interesting to academics is indeed a topic of significance to the encyclopedia.--Pharos 06:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: That still doesn't have any implication on the neutrality or verifiability of the sources in question, which is my chief argument for the destruction of this article. Can't have a NPOV article with POV sources. MalikCarr 06:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Malik, I feel that that your tone here is a bit sarcastic. Could you please assume good faith and try to remain civil? futurebird 06:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Response: Perhaps I wouldn't be so confrontational if I felt that these attitudes were being respected by some members of the Keep camp. Why don't you ask them to remain civil while you're at it? I feel the more grievous breaches of civility have come from them by a long shot. You know the ones. MalikCarr 06:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that other one was worse, but that confrontation seems to have bunt itself out. Also, could you please respond to my questions? futurebird 06:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've kind of lost track of them in all the flamewarring back and forth. Would you mind recalling them for me? I'll get right on it. MalikCarr 06:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

They are in bold now. futurebird 06:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There we are. Can we debate these questions further down here? It's getting annoying to sift through the edit box for the exact areas, and I worry I'm going to write over someone else's edits. MalikCarr 06:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (random) Section break B

• Strong Keep. I could offer a lengthy critique on the constructed nature of "neutrality" and its representation of a pervasive POV within a community that wishes itself to be seen as scholarly and scientific, but I'll just say that much and that this article is well-documented and describes a well-known sociological concept with plenty of peer-reviewed references. Those parts which aren't documented as well could stand to be improved, perhaps, but overall the article is well-supported by reliable sources. Consider the possibility that the appearance of an "egregious" POV may be the effect of the POV of the reader. Eriktrips 15:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)— Eriktrips (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• keep. nobody has attacked the notability of this article. even the critics agree that this article should be here so that's not the dispute. it sounds like the pro-deletion camp is saying that the only way to improve this article is to start over. this doesn't fit with what ive seen over the past year. over time the opinion piece was scrapped, the WP:NPOV fight stopped, the article got some proper footnotes, and there were only a few uncited facts left. it's still not perfect. citing everything wouldn't make it perfect. but deleting it ain't gonna fix it. one attack on this article is that the sources aren’t neutral or reliable. the most questionable stuff seems to be the oldest. flag that or edit that if you gotta. but stats from universities, newspapers, and government are solid. i agree that some parts only quote stats without conclusions, and so there’s some WP:SYN and WP:OR going on. but it doesn't take much for somebody to find a book that takes those stats and explains them using white privilege. and if the stats lead to a different conclusion, then somebody should put that other conclusion in the criticism. isn't that gonna work better than killing this article? the last criticism is that anyone who says “white privilege exists” has a POV and so the article will always violate WP:NPOV. but we can’t slash every concept that a few people say doesn’t exist. a study from the “panel on climate change” isn’t too biased for wikipedia just because they want to show that the climate is changing. if the science is there you can’t deny it. critics can only offer new data or new conclusions. that’s why we got articles on global warming and the bell curve, with criticism for both... oh, i guess I see just one more criticism... supposedly everybody voting “keep” is part of a vast conspiracy! when the debate gets to that level then you know it’s time to give it up. danthrax 16:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to the Aboves: Oh, that's wonderful, I guess JTrainor and I (and the other guy who voted for Delete) had best go get our tinfoil hats and hang out with our friends in the LaRouche groups. Look, the fact that this article has been tagged as NPOV and violating other policies and guidelines since forever doesn't hold any weight with you? I don't believe it can be improved because there's nothing -to- improve. I have never voted to delete an article I didn't think was worth saving, or had at least some redeeming merit. It's what being an inclusionist is all about.

As it is now, there are no mitigating factors to justify keeping this article up and running. The vast majority of its sources are totally POV-ridden (and thusly unverifiable), and the ones that don't inherently push their own agenda have their findings presented in a terribly OR fashion to support the arguments of the article as presented. Simply put, to "rewrite" this article to make it neutral and verifiable, you'd have to blank the entire page. So, while we're at it, why not crunch the whole damn thing, article history included, wash our hands of it, and move on? I highly doubt one could make a neutral and verifiable article on this subject, giving the current nature of race relations in the United States and points beyond, but I'd be open to see if anyone felt up to the task.

Are you seeing where I'm coming from here? I don't think I've ever gone after an article this vigorously before, because I haven't seen an article that needs to die this badly before. Can we stop with all the fingerpointing and accusations and debate this like gentlemen? MalikCarr 18:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "the fact that this article has been tagged as NPOV ... since forever" provides no evidence whatsoever for whether the article actually is NPOV or any other determination based on alleged NPOV-ness. Any article that covers a controversial subject is likely to pick up a lot of harassment and negative commentary, whether founded or not. So the mere fact that something has been tagged for violating a policy does not mean that it violates the policy; only that one editor has thought so and it is therefore going through wikipedia process. --lquilter 20:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me correct you. There is no NPOV tag on this article, only an OR tag. I don't think administrators will buy the "I'm an expert on what should be kept or deleted" argument either. And for your third strike, you pretty much failed to show "the vast majority of sources are POV-ridden". The burden of proof is pretty high when it comes to showing that a well-cited article about a notable concept should be deleted altogether. You've failed miserably. 64.231.195.228 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)— 64.231.195.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Ah, excuse me, it seems someone's removed the NPOV tag. Given the flurry of edits since this article was nominated for deletion, you'd be surprised at how many editors have forgotten that you're not supposed to edit an article that's been put up as an AfD until the process is over... oh well. MalikCarr 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(Point of Information Dude, the AfD tag clearly says 'You may keep editing this article' - please don't make up 'rules') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.39 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, your language is nice, but there's little value to it. Places like the Southern Poverty Law Center, American Mosaic Project, Rootise.com, and a whole smattering of op-ed pieces in newspapers and books dealing with issues of racial contention are totally POV subjects. Why is this even being debated? If I wanted to support an article about, oh, Turkish atrocities committed against Armenians and Cypriots, I wouldn't use Greek or Armenian sources to establish verifiability and NPOV, now would I? It just doesn't make sense. To show something exists, we're going to cite a bunch of people who have a political interest in showing it exists. Now that's some reliable souring logic there! Gah. MalikCarr 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the American Mosaic Project appears to be a foundation-funded research project of the University of Minnesota Sociology department, with no obvious agenda in its self-description. What's your evidence to the contrary?--Carwil 20:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been a NPOV tag on this article for a long time, nor has there been a dispute about POV for a long time. As for the OR tag, it's because there still remains a few uncited statements in the "Self-image" section. I've taken the liberty of removing Rootsie.com (much easier than deleting the whole article), but I fail to see how SPLC or the University of Minnesota are unreliable sources. I also fail to see the similarity between them and holocaust deniers. Where'd you come up with that one? 64.231.195.228 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)— 64.231.195.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: I wasn't making any reference to "holocaust deniers" with my previous comments. For what it's worth, my comparison was more existential in nature than material: you can't make a neutral, verifiable article if your main sources are pushing a POV, and that POV is synthesized in the article (WP:SYN). MalikCarr 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• response to your response: hate it or love it you haven't showed any POV problems. the article ain't even tagged for POV. it hasn't been for a while. and even if it was tagged it wouldn't explain your stance. you say the sources are clearly pushing a POV but haven't offered much to justify that. the sources look good to me. lots of VERIFIABLE research gets done to support some kind of agenda like the bell curve or global warming... if there are problems with the way data got collected or problems with conclusions drawn then that belongs in the criticism. it doesn't mean we delete all those articles. danthrax 12:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article discusses privilege - an issue which is, by its nature, non-neutral (or, if you prefer, "unfair" or "biased"). However, it does not logically follow that the article itself cannot be fair and neutral in its treatment of the subject. The subject is inherently notable and has been the subject of much academic discussion (5,490 articles listed on Google Scholar). As for concerns about policy/guideline violation, that is only a reason for deletion if it would be more productive to start the article again from scratch than to improve the existing article, and based on the current state of the article, that doesn't seem to apply. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, that's why we want to delete it. There's no better way to start from scratch than to totally torch the existing article. As an inclusionist, I've experienced this firsthand - articles that I've argued to be kept have been deleted anyway, but then remade in a much more compatible form, and the project was better for it. At any rate, neutrality and verifiability are the cornerstones for inclusion into Wikipedia. If a neutral article can't be made, the project shouldn't have one on that subject. And this isn't just me talking here; review the policies for yourself.

I believe I've already raised concerns about Google Scholar being some sort of litmus test for notability that have yet to be addressed, as well. MalikCarr 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I do not think the state of this article is so bad that it needs to be deleted. Also, the preceding comment seems ambiguous given MalikCarr's initial post which said, essentially, delete since this subject is inherently POV. It's not clear whether the intent is to delete the current article and replace it with a better one (assuming that such would be easier than improving the existing text), or just delete it since it cannot be neutral.

Here is a source which states: "In the last decade, the study of white privilege has reached currency in the educational and social science literature. In April 2002, the city of Pella, Iowa, hosted the Third Annual Conference on White Privilege..." which makes a good case for notability. And given the number of academic papers easily obtainable, a neutral article can be written on the subject. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 00:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:Civilty please. Let's all chill a bit and instead of building up opposing sides or viewpoints stick to discussing the article and best ways to proceed. Any real or perceived attacks or personal jabs should cease, consider striking out your own comments (perhaps they were made out of frustration?) and let's go forward so that all who read this archived document will note that we were able to work together despite differences in style, process and opinion. Benjiboi 20:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It is an widely discussed sociological theory, definitely worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia. More detail and citations could improve the article, but it should not be deleted. In response to the originally posted reasons for deletion, White Privelege is NOT a synthasis of orignal ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: You don't agree with one aspect of the AfD nomination, therefore we should keep it? Whatever you say, Mr. Anonymous IP. MalikCarr 01:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply:Thanks for your insightful discussion, Mr. Snide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply:The nominator cited 2 reasons for deletion. The claim of RS sources had already been thoroghly debunked and I saw no reason to further comment. If you wish, I will add my voice on that aspect now: The article cites many reliable references and claim of RS violations are utter baloney. The claim of Synth for the topic of the article had also been addressed and debunked, but I added my voice to that portion of the reasoning. There. Are you happy now?

• Keep. I confess that my views on the existence and importance of white privilege would land me under the "criticism" section of the article. Nonetheless, I found that I was able to read the page without feeling like my viewpoint was insulted or threatened, and particularly found that the criticism section fairly expressed my point of view. It is clearly a notable subject, and I don't believe that any quibbles about the prestige of the scholarship is justified. One might look at articles such as humorism, which are quite alive despite the fact that their theories are wholly discredited and any living proponents would not be thought of as reliable sources. The evidence that white privilege is an observable phenomenon is significantly stronger, and therefore far more worthy of wiki-existence. Several writers on this page have suggested that the page has grown more mature over the past six months since its last AfD, so I suggest that the argument that this article be removed and replaced by a fresh effort should be rejected as counter-productive. MatthewDaly 00:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep white privilege is a well documented phenomena in sociological, psychological, and cultural academic fields in major universities across the united states. this documentation is also attested to by the various citation. the notion of White privilege has informed other areas of study wrt Male privilege, Heterosexual privilege, and other privileges in their respective fields of academic study. --Stoneself 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC) — Stoneself (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. While some people may believe the concept itself is not POV, surely all would agree that a NPOV article can be written about a POV. White privilege is no more "inherently POV" than racism: it's a theoretical model. White privilege is unquestionably a notable topic in a number of discourses, and the concept has significantly influenced activism and a wide variety of anti-oppression theories. --lquilter 20:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I agree with lquilter's comments directly above. It's a sociological term, people -- there's certainly room for presenting other sociological terms/theories that discount it, but it's silly to pretend it doesn't exist or that it can't be presented in a NPOV article. ivan 05:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Note to admin: This should be closed under WP:SNOW. It's unfortunate that articles on controversial topics arouse such ire and misunderstanding, but there is just no question that this is a prominent, notable, influential academic topic. One editor has reiterated his issues multiple times, but that is not enough to make a fruitful AFD discussion. He has added no new points that have not been made and refuted on the talk page of the article in question. (And I note that he added a notaballot template to this article without explaining why he would think that this *was* a ballot. It seems to me that a lot of people are simply expressing their honest confusion that such a notable topic would have to undergo this process.) --lquilter 13:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Nice try, but virtually all of the keep arguments have focused on the purported noteability of this subject and glossed over the many problems with the article mentioned by the nom. Those problems are why this article needs to be burnt to the ground, not it's noteability or lack thereof. Jtrainor 13:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Correction. Most of the arguments here have focused on the abundance of reliable research. You haven't put forth ANY argument, other than asserting the POV and OR is "blatantly clear". The problems with this article are neither clear nor blatant, and thus the article should be improved with incremental edits. At best, MalikCarr managed to shed doubt on one source -- Rootsie.com -- which was removed promptly, and wasn't relied upon for research purposes anyway (it was part of the further reading section). Deletion of the entire article is clearly unnecessary, because the argument that this entire article is POV ridden has not been supported with any substance. 64.231.195.228 16:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• I am not "trying" anything. WP:AFD clearly states that "for problems that do not require deletion, including ... POV problems". See WP:DEL which further lists reasons for deletion, none of which have been cited here. The arguments cited thus far, taken in the light most favorable to the proposers of deletion, are insufficient according to wikipedia policy for deletion. While that can work if nobody is paying attention, the proliferation of people cogently pointing out that this is a significant scholarly concept makes it clear that people are paying attention. So, WP:SNOW. --lquilter 17:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am against MalikCarr in that I'm for keeping the article. However, I agree with him that from time to time this article has had some sketchy sources. About 6 months ago I had made some major edits (purging primarily) because of how terrible the article was. It was 10x worse than it's condition now and some sections just had to go. I remember one source was a socialist faction newsletter. Another sources was a survey done by the Department of Residential Life at the University of New Hampshire; but it wasn't the results of the survey that were referenced, it was the PDF of the survey itself (the thing students fill out and submit). One could argue that it's from a university, so it must be good. However, this article is so much better than it was then that it has shown great improvement on both sides of the white privilege controversy. Chris01720 02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I mean it was 10x worse 6 months ago I mean in terms of content, sources, and style. If you think this article doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines (which it does clearly violate, but most articles don't keep to them perfectly) then you should have checked it out 6 months ago. I said a few days ago that when I came across it the article was nothing more than a high school student's english/social studies essay. It fit the cookie-cutter high school paper with a clear thesis at the end of the first paragraph and then the 3rd paragraph being the one with counter arguments. And like I said in my above post, it's sources were crap. I salvaged what I could of that, but when it's a high school essay, there's not much that can be done. Since doing that the article has made such great improvement and by this time there are so many people interested in editing this that I think the article is slowly getting better. When I made those major purges (to both sides of the white privilege controversy) not one person contested them. That is how bad it used to be. Chris01720 02:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (random) Section break C

Comment: Oh great, we're going after WP:SNOW now? Christ, leave the debate for a day to handle some extracurricular affairs and they're trying to close down the debate because a mob of like-minded editors and single-purpose accounts have come by to smother opposition. The character assassinations are fun, too... so far I've had assumptions made of my ethnicity and motivations, political background, and I'm somehow held to account for applying a template to a page STATING A POLICY SECTION IN AN EASILY VIEWABLE FASHION that is currently infiltrated by multiple suspected SPAs? Why do I even bother with this, my fully reasonable observations have been "debunked" by people repeating the same line about how "this has been covered in sources and is notable, bad faith nomination". I posted that template in the (apparently vain) hope that people who have been asked to vote, or have stumbled across this on their own and feel like regurgitating the same tired statements and ad hominem will respect policy that AfDs are decided on the merits of arguments presented (for which the Keep side, for all its volume, has yet to produce much in the way of), not the quantity of people piling in on either side. Wikipedia is not a mob rule. MalikCarr 07:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone here has given substantive responses. Describing a large number of editors who disagree as "a mob ... come to smother opposition" is not helpful language. I'm not going to touch your implications of sock-puppetry ("single-purpose accounts") or over-inflated commentary about personal attacks. WP:SNOW is not an attack; it's an observation that this discussion is wasting Wikipedia editors' time and it's clear that, despite your ardent disagreement, the article will not be deleted (or if it were, it would be speedily reversed on appeal). By far most discussion here has been reasonable, albeit in strong disagreement with you. If you are in an extreme minority and people are not persuaded of your arguments, the best thing to do is to sit back, take stock of what everyone is saying, and consider why your arguments are unpersuasive. --lquilter 12:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• BTW I have now looked at the contributions history of virtually all the people posting here and I do not think the sock-puppetry accusation is warranted. Almost all of the redlinked and IP accounts actually have an edit history that extends before this debate and beyond this article. (Only one did not.) --lquilter 12:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Again with the conspiracy theories. Could it be that you just haven't done a very good job of supporting your argument that these sources are unreliable? Could it be that everyone but you thinks the article is not half bad, let alone decent? 64.231.195.228 15:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You and Jtrainor seem to be frustrated at the lack of specific commentary by the keep-supporters. This seems natural to me, as the deletion proposal contains no specific charges to rebut. The claim is that the article is "OR-ladden"[sic], and that violations of reliable sources and NPOV "abound". There isn't really much to say to counter that other than I have read the article and don't see the problems to the degree that you do, and many seem to have reached the same conclusion. Now, you can claim that we are all sock puppets -- which emotionalizes the debate, inviting a further degradation in discourse, and doesn't advance your case -- or you can assume that enough of us are acting in good faith that perhaps our perceptions are worth noting. You don't have to call WP:SNOW at that point, although it would save some of us from coming back twice a day to see whether the discussion has progressed. But at least please consider that if you want people to see what you see regarding this article's flaws, you're going to have to enumerate them, and at the same time demonstrate that it wouldn't take less effort to fix those flaws individually than to rewrite the entire article.MatthewDaly 18:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh for the love of... tell you what, my arguments have been so utterly blown out of proportion in both intent and interpretation, I don't even see any reason to continue with this farce. I'm tired of trying to make a comprehensive argument and having it reduced to gross simplifications, generalizations and outright slander. You can have your rubbish article; I'll be back when it inevitably degenerates into an even more horrendous form than it's already in. MalikCarr 07:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I was actually hoping you'd start by putting forth an argument. So far, all I've heard is that "the sources are *obviously* POV". Sorry if the Southern Poverty Law Center is a respectable academic institution that produces reliable research. 64.231.195.228 15:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep A valid sociological construct. --Strothra 16:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.