Talk:White privilege

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White privilege article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 March 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 October 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives

Archive 1 - 2005-06 Archive 2 - 2007

Contents 1 White privilege as the absence of racism 2 Restructure 3 Education 4 Requested move 5 white privilege or majority privilege 6 NPOV tags 7 Avoid synthesis with visible sourcing 8 worldview? 9 Justification of white privilege Section 10 Housing 11 "unreliable source?" tags 12 White advantage 13 Wealth inheritance section is a joke!

[edit] White privilege as the absence of racism

I don't see how this paragraph illustrates a criticism of "white privilege". In fact I can't see what this paragraph is saying at all. Since I've been reverted once for removing it, could someone please rewrite it so it makes sense? --Knulclunk (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

...

So what I think this paragraph is attempting to say is:

Critics also claim that the concept of white privilege compares the racism experienced by minorities to the mostly racism-free experiences of white people. Concerned that the absence of racism should not be considered a privilege but a basic right, critics feel examples such as Peggy McIntosh's^[1] are questionable. Critics are further concerned that the definition of white privilege posited by Kendall Clark^[2] combine concepts of basic human rights with unjustified immunities and advantages. These critics go on to note that the concept of white privilege is used to justify political "affirmative action" policies, creating a racial double standard. A double standard that would weaken the ultimate goal, a "racism free" society.

The paragraph reeks of original research because we never define who these critics are!--Knulclunk (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you just write that paragraph?? I'm confused as to how you can totally refactor a paragraph in an article, and then complain about its weasel words. And at first glance, it looks to me like you substantially changed what it's saying. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to make the paragraph salvageable. How did I "refactor" it? What they were trying to say, because (at first glance) it is not clear! --Knulclunk (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Descriptions of white privilege primarily compare examples of racism experienced by ethnic minorities to the mostly racism free experiences of white people[35]. 

Privilege involves the lack of discrimination.

The definition of white privilege[36] uses concepts which define what is justified, like rights and freedoms, in the same context as unjustified immunities, advantages and benefits. 

Privilege is "what you get" - whether it is a human right that you should have, or a leg-up that isn't necessary.

This is the only part you were modifying, and doing so under the incorrect assumption that MacIntosh is not a reliable source, etc. Now, what I will say is that the rest of the paragraph is based on an unreliable source and does not substantiate what is said there (even if synthesis were allowed, which it isn't). But your edits didn't make sense, and were not based on rationales that made any sense to me. What you've got, upon further examination, is sort of the same, but you've taken the second half of the old paragraph and stretched it out into the entire paragraph. Sort of. I consider it much harder to figure out what it's saying after your changes than before. But, we both clearly agree that this block of criticism is unsourced, yes? So why not remove it entirely as original research? That's something I can get behind, although I think the original first part of the paragraph is salvageable as something to add to the stuff above (if not too redundant). --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole paragraph should be removed, but I was already reverted once.  :) --Knulclunk (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I didn't even see that one. I'd say give it a day or two, and if nobody objects, one of us should remove the unsourced original research stuff from the criticism section. After that, anything that should be incorporated into other sections should be (e.g. the stuff I was talking about above). --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So this IP edit makes the wording better still. But without naming these critics, we are still toying with OR.--Knulclunk (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to be bold and cut it. It's unsourced OR that is, honestly, pretty dubious. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I did the IP edit, I think the entire article needs a shave with occam's razor, it also needs to be re-structured in a logical manner. Also yeah, sorry for being anonymous, I'll make an account later... --Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.176.22 (talk • contribs)

You don't have to create an account - anonymous contributions are welcome (although an account does make things easier). But either way, if you want to sign your comments, type four tildes (this ~ is a tilde). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restructure

How many people agree that this article needs restructuring? There is no need to start again from scratch as most contributions are high quality and necessary, it needs to be restructured in a manner which is helpful to most visitors who want the simplest definition possible (without leaving out vital information) whilst allowing people to quickly find elaborations on important concepts.

How should this be organised? Firstly white privilege evokes strong feelings so it should be organised in an objective manner aimed at communicating facts in order of relevance in understanding white privilege instead of in order of personal importance.

To begin with wikipedians should take a firm stance and provide a neutral "canon" explanation of white privilege so people unfamiliar with white privilege can quickly establish what it is and people who have an interest in the subject understand what specific definition is being used as the article progresses. This should be followed by definitions from various sources and a logical evaluation of these. Vloxul (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A logical evaluation? That sounds like an essay. We're not really supposed to be evaluating or comparing things like that. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Then delete the entire article and put a list of links in it's place. We are supposed to make logical evaluations as long as the logic is sound and the facts used are backed up.Vloxul (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No. See WP:SYN. Don't strawman me with "delete the entire article." I'm here to contribute positively too, you know. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Vloxul writes: To begin with wikipedians should take a firm stance and provide a neutral "canon" explanation of white privilege This sounds like an excellent addition to the article. Do you have some reliable sources that have a 'standard definition' that we could use? Please feel free to preview your suggested changes to the article here for discussion and comment. 144.15.255.227 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Education

This section seems ehh to me. I get the impression that the person who wrote it decided what they wanted to say and then searched for info to back it up later. It sounds as though it's saying that it has always been and will always be that way. I think for it to be encyclopedic it should read something like... "As of 2008, X percentage of minority students are place in honors classes; whereas X percentage of white students are placed in honors classes, even when test scores are equal". Wikipedia is about facts, but there aren't any stats or other hard facts. There are a few sections that appear to have this problem, in my opinion. Anyone agree with me and/or have some idea for improvement? Chris01720 (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To add to my above comment, the "employment and economics" section is an example of what I think the education section (and a couple others) should look like. Personally, I am of the opinion that the education section should just be deleted because unless someone has those books cited, it might be hard to fix it without rewriting the whole thing. Chris01720 (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

People who hate this article seem to really love the "just delete it and start over" argument. Scientists test null hypotheses like "there is no difference between X and Y" all the time. And when there is a statistically significant deviation from the null hypothesis, scientists are so bold as to say "X is different from Y". So, yes, social scientists can be so bold as to say that there are differences in treatment between blacks and whites, where all other things are equal. There's nothing wrong with stating those scientific conclusions in an encyclopedic article, especially when it's backed by multiple reliable sources. If people have a problem with those conclusions, they can cite criticisms of the studies, or cite other studies that refute those conclusions. Reaganitis (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And let's be sure not to overlook WP:UNDUE before people take any opportunity to cram an article full of unduly-weighted criticism. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reaganitis, you totally missed the point I was trying to make. I don't think you even read what I said. I'm not arguing it's validity like you seem to think. My issue is that the way it is currently written is unscientific because it doesn't give any scientific data. A true study would list the controls, numbers, standard deviation, dates, etc. This has none of that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means everything here needs to be based on facts. In the case of a study, facts means numbers, dates, etc. There is none of that. As far as we know, the discrepancy could be within the standard deviation, which would definitely make it an unencyclopedic statement. Again, it should look something like the "employment and economics" section. Chris01720 (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)\

Reaganitis, sorry for my harsh words in the beginning of my above statement. If it makes a difference to you, I am a minority. The issue is that this this study could have been from 40 years ago and no longer valid; it could have been in just one county; it could be just for private schools. There is too much not known to make this an encyclopedic argument. I do understand that the sources listed are from the past 5 years, but that doesn't mean the content in them is up to date. They could simply be a reprint of old material. All I'm asking for is some numbers. Chris01720 (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find research that criticizes these studies as unscientific (for poor controls, analysis, etc.), or a study uses the scientific method to reach a different conclusion... that would go in the criticism section. But removing scientific conclusions from wikipedia articles that "seem ehh" would be extremely destructive. I agree with you, though, that better context should be provided. A time and a place would be useful. These are studies from the late 90s, and things may have changed since then (for better or for worse). But we shouldn't remove the information. Reaganitis (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sociology paper. We present theoretical parts of the social sciences and do not require statistical studies necessarily. WP:V does not ask us to use such specific types of sources. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not arguing the validity of this section. The other sections don't just say there is racism, they show it with numbers. This doesn't show anything. In all seriousness, it's a valid point, but having references is trivial when they didn't provide anything useful. My point is that 100% of Americans could tell you, verbatim, what is said in the education section, and without needing a source. As for WP:V, this section bases itself off of a survey, therefore the results of the survey should be listed, in addition to an interpretation. All I'm saying is that I think it should resemble the "employment and economics" section, which is backed up with numbers. Chris01720 (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

This article has been renamed from White privilege (sociology) to White privilege as the result of a move request.

[edit] white privilege or majority privilege

Is it really fair to call it white privelege when really what we are discussing is majority privelege? Japanese people in Japan enjoy many of the things listed here but they are not white. This also re-directs from 'list of racism' but the opening paragraph suggests that this concept "differs from racism". clean-up perhaps? I would also add that this article is HIGHLY north American centric focusing on things like African Americans Vs White Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.67.235.140 (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, we are not deciding what is and isn't White Privilege, reliable sources are. If reliable sources refer to White Privelege, then we document what they have said about White Privelege. Murderbike (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That, and the fact that this isn't about being in the majority, it's about being white. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that seems to be a problem with this and other articles that are dealing with whites and People of Color. Popular discourse seems to remain largely unchallenged by progressive and liberal Caucasians who don't seem to grasp its implications. Yet sweeping generalizations are made about "white people", with little discussion about those Caucasians who benefit from "white privilege" and those who do not. I find it hard to believe that sociologists who study the behavior of human beings don't understand the importance of making those distinctions. Maybe I'm just hyper-sensitive, but the language used seems to be part of a larger trend which seeks to demonize and marginalize Whites as a Race, dismissing their humanity and pitting them against "People Of Color". Perhaps some different sources would be useful.Beatmakerz (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is a sociological concept of "majority privilege" and you have reliable sources that you can cite, feel free to create an article on that topic and we can have "see also" references back and forth. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well what you're calling "reliable" sources is precisely what he is challenging. Many of these sources, wether they're published, even critically claimed, can still be crap. And such controversies should be covered within the article.

[edit] NPOV tags

(copy prev comment and create new section)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well what you're calling "reliable" sources is precisely what he is challenging. Many of these sources, wether they're published, even critically claimed, can still be crap. And such controversies should be covered within the article.

This is true, there are countless articles on Wikipedia that use "reliable" sources that are completely ridiculous. Any concept which attempts to marginalize an entire race of people can't be all good. While "white privelage" may exist as an idea, it's antithesis also exists, and the demonization of "White People" should not the the central theme of this article rather, context should keep a human perspective. More reliable sources which CHALLENGE these over-simplified views of "white privelage" need to be included to put these racist opinions in perspective.BGMNYC (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific. This article doesn't demonize all white people. If you think it does, you'll have to point to a specific statement that does so. You concede that the theory exists. The page explains the theory and the evidence used to support that theory. If you would like to do a better job of reinforcing that its "antithesis" exists, I'd encourage you to provide research that can improve our criticism section. Seeing as you think that more reliable sources exist, it should be easy, no? Profepstein (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

BGMNYC if you have a valid, substantive NPOV concern, state it clearly and directly. Waving your hands about white-hating is not a legitimate concern, and alluding to reliable sources that might exist, that you think exist, or that might be worth adding is something you could do all on your own. There's a saying on Wikipedia: you think there's a problem? SOFIXIT. Making grandiose claims about white-hating is not how you demonstrate a POV problem. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the very fact that he has disputed it is sufficient to require review. BGM does not need to supply this article with sources unless he adds some sourced material. So far the only edit I can see is that he added the dispute tag and came to to the discussion page. This is all in line with good Wikipedia etiquette. Whatever his personal views about race are, it seems to me he is challenging the neutrality of the article, which means the tag should remain. I for one support it, this article is not neutral, and this is further exemplified by the revert war curently being waged by Yahel, Cheeser1 and Murderbike etc. The tag should remain until the concerns are discussed and not simply and sarcastically dismissed.75.7.28.238 (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No specific concerns have been given, only vague arguments that sound a bit to much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Murderbike (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Since you have never contributed anywhere but here before, I will point out that this reasoning: I think the very fact that he has disputed it is sufficient to require review. is completely flawed. NPOV concerns have to be legitimate concerns, not "I think this well-documented sociological theory is mean to white people, I demand a review of this so that it fits my personal opinion and does not demonize white people." Making a fuss is not the same as raising a real concern - you may consider things to be "disputed" just because somebody is making a fuss, but in reality, "disputed" means that a legitimate concern about the POV of this article has been raised - that is not the case. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser your characterization of the posts you are responding to are alarmingly inaccurate and charged with anger. The things your accusing him of are apparently the very things you are doing. You dont seem to be paying attention to whats actually being said, and keep throwing in wrenches to make him sound bad. What I read from BGM, unless he's changed his posts, dont sound like your version. I support the neutrality tag, this article needs a lot of work in that respect.DATBUS (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Acting like he's raised a valid point doesn't make it any less untrue. The complaint is that white privilege, a valid, well-studied, widely-accepted sociological theory is somehow racist against white people, and apparently people want to conjure up sources to challenge it, demanding that this article be tagged as "disputed" until then. Unfortunately, that analysis of white privilege is totally subjective/personal, nonNPOV, not based on any sources, and not a valid concern. I'm not angry, I'm just being blunt, because I'd rather say what's true then conjure up large paragraphs full of personal musings about the subject of this article, which (should) have no bearing on the article (and which shouldn't even be posted on Wikipedia). This article is based on the existing body of sociological work. If you don't like what sociology has to say about race and privilege, I'm sorry but that doesn't make this a POV problem. --Cheeser1 (talk)

Well put Cheeser1. Murderbike (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Yahel Guhan 04:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not.BGMNYC (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Chesser's well-put statements. seicer | talk | contribs 06:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think BGMNYC has explained himself sufficiently to warrant the tag. I also disagree with "Cheesie's" cheap shots, they really aren't much on point. It would be nice to see some other editors step in to try and improve this article, maybe find some more objective sources with which to balance the views in this article. The manner in which you "gang up" on this editor is an extension of how non-neutral this article is; through intimidation and revert warring you are not considering nor even allowing the possibility of other viewpoints. Bad form.Beatmakerz (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with consensus policy on Wikipedia. I notice that you have only contributed to a small, highly-localized set of articles for a short period of time, so I will take this opportunity to welcome you to Wikipedia and invite you to familiarize yourself with our policies before you become too entangled in these frivolous disputes. Best, --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but installing a NPOV-tag and then refusing to discuss the rationale behind it and expecting others is not a well thought-out strategy. To add the tag, one must be willing to engage, but I fail to see that happening. seicer | talk | contribs 06:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a great deal written throughout this discussion page that challenges the neutrality of the article, not just from BGM. (See the "protected" part of the page as well.) Perhaps he was referring to already existing discourse. Having "reliable" sources does not mean it doesn't need more "reliable" sources to bring about some neutrality. But trying to bully people into submission, especially over a simple tag, is also bad form.Beatmakerz (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

All of these "challenges" are simply the opinions of particular editors who come out of nowhere to make these challenges. NPOV disputes must be substantiated by legitimate concerns as to the neutrality of an article, not vague allusions to some inherent racism that exists in widely-accepted sociological theories. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is obligated to "come out of somewhere" and meet your imaginary standards. I raised questions based on reading the ENTIRE article AND discussion. Then I added the tag, in accordance with Wikipedia policies with the hopes of sparking some discussion. But NOT this tidal wave of reverts and condescending demands from you and your cronies, who launched IMMEDIATELY into an attack by repeatedly removing the tag without ever having talked about it. Cheeser I do not wish to address you again, and anybody else who speaks his vernacular. The tag is put their to IMPROVE the article. I still hope it can move in that direction. But I don't have the time for this insanity.BGMNYC (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BGMNYC (talk • contribs) 08:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To simply claim "there are NPOV problems" and then continue the argument with solely the statement "there are NPOV problems" is not going to help make the article better. Please identify where such problems exist or identify other points of view from Reliable Sources that you would like to enter into the article to move it to what you consider a more NPOV. (I moved this under a new section header since we no longer seem to be discussing a concept of "majority privilege")TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I will note that the editor(s) insisting on inserting the NPOV tag went to User talk:Seicer demanding that he, as an intervening neutral admin, check me and several of you because we are apparently sockpuppets, despite being long-term contributors to various areas of the project. Unfortunately, these five SPAs who've been editing in the same vein for only a period of weeks are quite easily identifiable as themselves sockpuppets. I have compiled the data at Seicer's talkpage and will likely move it to SSP or RfCU in short order. --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed last week that there are several WP:SPAs and IPs that seem to be sockpuppets. I can't believe "they" have accused you of puppetry. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what confused the heck out of me. Who's really silly enough to come out and call three well-established and obviously different editors sockpuppets when they're doing a bad job of hiding their own sockpuppetry? Crazy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I was kind of amused that after 11,000+ edits I finally got a sock accusation. Murderbike (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK Sybil, darling.BGMNYC (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

...and I have removed the NPOV tags. After giving ample time to discuss why the article is not neutral, they have only made vague statements alluding to its surmised neutrality issues, but have not come up with any detailed responses on just what is not neutral. No course of action was given or undertaken to improve the article, and the bickering has evolved into using obvious sockpuppets and finger-pointing. In the future, discuss why you believe an article is not neutral and then apply the appropriate tag; it's not up to other editors to guess at what a surmised problem is. seicer | talk | contribs 02:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Seicer, If you actually confirmed that they are sockpuppets after all, then why are they still posting and controlling this article? Why were they not blocked? The tag should remain until some objective editors review and improve it. I am not interested in engaging in dialog with "editors" who sabatoge others posts, engage in revert wars then later DEMAND a "discussion". It was clear from the outset that any move towards discussion was a waste of time for this editing "clique". No one here was interested in the reasons, and only agenda appeared to support eachother's edits. But suit yourself, the inferior quality of the article will have to speak for itself until someone else breaks up this little gathering. I have other things to do.BGMNYC (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be true, judging by the immediate revert war they launched once the tag was added and the initial absence of any discussion at that point, there was apparently no intent to consider BGM's, or anyone elses perspective. You are right, his/their goal is to intimidate others off the article. Cheeser1, Murderbike, Yahel, Malik Shabbaz, And now with Seicer's help, it worked.Beatmakerz (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody was adding anything to the article, just leveling vague and unfounded claims. I'm sorry that you feel so persecuted, but there is a process for taking care of problems around here, and it hasn't been followed. If you have SPECIFIC and CITED claims with this article, please, bring them here. But don't waste everyone's time slinging unfounded sockpuppet claims at established editors while contributing nothing positive the project. Murderbike (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Beside huffing and puffing on the Talk page, what have the offended editors done? Between them, have they made a single constructive edit? If there are such obvious problems with the article, Be bold and fix them instead of bitching and moaning in generalities. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing is gained by simply slapping up a tag then moving away and not engaging in discussion or edits. seicer | talk | contribs 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And now we can all await the results of: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BGMNYC. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid synthesis with visible sourcing

We need to avoid the appearance of synthesis, or the collection of published material to advance an argument. This can be done by quoting the statistics used in this article in the published context of white privilege. This is required for the sub-sections : Justice, Employment and economics, Education, and Media. Currently these use sourced statistics, but may be being used as original research for the argument of white privilege. --Knulclunk (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will also point out that if source X says "white privilege is demonstrated in the statistics in source Y" please cite source X - do not jump past it to source Y, or we'll never know the between source Y and white privilege. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything that appears to violate WP:SYN. A study doesn't have to come from a critical race theorist or some other white privilege scholar to describe an aspect of white privilege. White privilege occurs exactly when a minority is more or less likely to be judged a certain way in employment, crime, or education, through no fault of their own. That's what these sections explain in greater detail. "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing." That's exactly how these sections are structured. I see no original research in this article. Profepstein (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Knulclunk's point is mostly cautionary, I believe. The point is that this article is prone to "these data in source X support the conclusions of source Y" when source X is not about white privilege and source X doesn't mention source Y. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser has it. For example, the first part of Employment and economics is fine, as the examples are based on studies designed to explicitly identify if white privilege was a factor in hiring practices. The second paragraph only seems to compare income inequity, which can include multiple factors. As it is written now, it is not clear that white privilege leads to income inequality or that inequality leads to privilege. The Hartnett article reference, for example, is only an article about income disparity and has nothing to do with privilege at all. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Media section removed as there is no reference to White Privilege in the source. This section is original research by synthesis. --Knulclunk (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] worldview?

What exactly are the concerns that the worldview tag is meant to represent? If this is an issue relevant primarily or exclusively to the US, or one that is studied and understood primarily or exclusively in a US context, how is that something we are supposed to fix (without original research, speculation, etc.)? --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Justification of white privilege Section

This section represents a fringe theory not accepted by the general body of scholars that does accept and produce the study of white privilege. This section represents the opinion of a single person who is notably controversial, unreliable, biased, and without scholarly authority (a pundit, if you will). WP:UNDUE seems to apply, so the section should at least be tagged until it is fixed or removed altogether. There is surely little that can come of a section "Justifying white privilege" when such justification appears to be nonexistant in terms of WP:RS/WP:V/etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Body of scholars? When 41% of whites, 17% of blacks and 16% of Hispanics do not believe that "prejudice and discrimination in favor of whites is important in explaining white advantage" or "prejudice and discrimination create a form of white privilege," how can you call opposition to the concept of white privilege fringe? I think the elitist WP:BIAS may be showing here.Perhaps for those in the narrow, "scholarly" field of Critical Race Theory, calling the opinions fringe may feel good, but in the real world even 17% is not fringe.

Please don't misinterpret my goal here. I think this is an important article. And I agree, like most pundits, Sailer is a buffoon and a racist. Perhaps there is a less controversial writer who has commented in a more civil fashion? --Knulclunk (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem - I don't think there is. I haven't seen anything in an accepted body of work (ie not punditry passing for some sort of academic criticism that isn't fringe work). Until there is, WP:UNDUE (and perhaps WP:RS) worry me. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sailer Rocks! His view is legitimate, he has many readers on the internet, and he is free to associate with whom he pleases. Rbaish (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Steve Sailer is a certifiable racist. Sorry, "racial realist", along with David Duke. Someone's going to have to find a more authoritative source, or delete this section. There's pretty much no place for Steve Sailer's opinion on any article about race, with the exception of an article about Steve Sailer. 65.95.142.229 (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a term for Sailer that we can agree to to remove the NPOV tag? --Knulclunk (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this [1] criticism of "white privilege". The writer takes the stance that "White privilege" doesn't take into account class, which (she argues) is the real divider in the U.S. (and other countries) and which leads often to racism. She makes a better argument than Sailer (who seems to me a proponent of thinly-veiled racism), but I do not know if the article is any less fringe than Sailer's point. Someone else please read the article and let me know if it might be included in the "Criticisms" section. Because of the controversial nature of this article, I don't want to put something this big into this article without consulting with my fellow editors. Basilides/"ούκ ών θεός" (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The central them of the article is quite different than Sailer. I don't think the new article can replace Sailer's comments. The idea that "class not race" divides America is not new, and here is being applied to White Privilege by a leftist writer, unusual. The source seems fringe to me, a socialist internet rag, and seems to be the typical forum for her work. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although I think she makes a compelling argument (that is neither here nor there, and my opinion doesn't mean anything). I wasn't trying to replace Sailer's section, I was just providing another type of criticism to fill out the "Criticism" section. That section seems rather sparse to me, since I've heard many a criticism of the idea ("it's a generalization", "it ignores the class gap", "it only empowers the people who are already powerful", etc.), but good luck finding a reliable source for those sorts of criticisms. (Plenty of opinion either way, but it is rarely reliable & scholarly.) I'm not saying I want to beef up the section on criticism just to beef it up; I'm saying I'm trying to find reliable sources which reflect the criticisms I've heard, in real life, as regards this ongoing debate. Basilides/"ούκ ών θεός" (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Housing

The housing paragraph implies that "redlining" and "blockbusting" still take place. Is this true? Is that The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology claims? Seems iffy.... --Knulclunk (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "unreliable source?" tags

I was asked to discuss why I added an "unreliable source?" tag to a quote from a Seattle Times op-ed by Matt Rosenberg. My rationale was that (a) Rosenberg is described by the Times as "a Seattle writer and communications consultant" and (b) the quote is from an op-ed. Does Rosenberg have any qualifications to discuss white privilege, which is defined in the lede as "a sociological concept"? Also, is an op-ed column a reliable source? In general, op-eds aren't subjected to the same fact-checking as news reports. Those are the reasons I added the "unreliable source?" tag. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

An op-ed is acceptable by WP:RS; "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given." This is done. As a reporter and columnist in the mainstream press, Rosenberg does have qualifications to discuss the use of white privilege theory in the Seattle school system (also not academic sociologists, btw). His criticism with white privilege is not with the concept itself, but in the use of the concept to influence public policy. His op-ed illustrates that someone can acknowledge the existence of racial disparity, but may not support government interventions or, as Ignatiev suggests, the "abolishing the white race".

Surely you do not consider the Rosenberg editorial fringe?! --Knulclunk (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But he's not being quoted for his opinion; it seems to me like he's being quoted as if he's writing facts ("discussing unequal test scores between public school students"). I've identified him as an opinion columnist, instead of simply as a writer. What do you think? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fine. Thanks! --Knulclunk (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White advantage

I think that the soical, political, and economic concept should be "advantage" instead of "privilege". (66.220.96.72) 1:01, May 30, 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion or my opinion doesnt matter. What matters is that the terminology that academia uses for this concept is 'white privilege'. Show us that the current application of terminology has changed to "advantage" and the article can be moved properly to a new title. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wealth inheritance section is a joke!

Although I'm not a demographic or economic expert, I am a social scientist by education and career. I find the Wealth section totally misleading. The percentage of people who "inherited wealth which lifts a family beyond their own achievements" is quite small. How on earth can anyone write this as if it represents the majority of White Americans? This assertion is a joke. It makes White Americans en masse sound like landed aristocratic nobility!

See this article: http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/25/retirement/inheritance/

Interesting facts I extrapolated from the above 2003 article:

1. Only 8% of American receive ANY inheritance (anything from $1 and up). 2. Of the 8% that do receive an inheritance, 53% receive less than $25,000. 3. Of the remaining 3.8% who receive over $25,000, 30% receive less than $50,000.

Thus, only 1.7% of Americans receive an inheritance over $50,000. This hardly constitutes what the author argued: "...inherited wealth has sustained the inequality that was present in the past. Many whites were able to pass along their wealth in the form of inheritances and transformative assets (inherited wealth which lifts a family beyond their own achievements) which continually give advantage to the white class today."

I understand the assertions that Whites have had more opportunities and, given Whites' overall better economic standing, are able to give their children more opportunities. However, the inheritance argument is bankrupt and needs to be removed.

Someone please address this! Whoever authored this either has a very skewed agenda or has a grudge of some sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboondocksaint (talk • contribs) 22:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)