Talk:Privilege (social inequality)
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Sociology||(Rated Stub-class)|
|The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
An unhappy customer
Oh my gosh this article. Someone please give this at least a modicum of credibility, a footnote, something. The Wikipedia is not a place to carefully document your social justice fantasy roster of accusatory terms, it is for verifiable facts and theories. (22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC))
- Yeah this article is kind of ..... whacky and unresearched. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- "a modicum of credibility" If you had clicked through to the specific examples you'd see that. And then you'd see on the talk pages there yet more cries from the privileged that their privilege doesn't exist. There is simply no pleasing the bigots. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a great deal of changes have occurred in the time intervening, but I found this article well-substantiated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivamoque (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I've tagged this article for a neutrality because
1. Language of the article is unprofessional and biased (e.g "Privilege is generally invisible to those who have it", should include a reference in the sentence in addition to a citation, such as "According to x,").
2. This article states 'privilege' as a matter of fact (e.g "Privilege has many benefits"). It is convention when discussing sociological concepts to make clear that it is a theoretical model(e.g "Social class...is a set of concepts in the social sciences and political theory centered on models of social stratification in which people are grouped into a set of hierarchical social categories").
3. Input of opinion and commentary by the author (e.g "It began as an academic concept, but has since become popular outside of academia", no citation)
4. The section "denial of privilege" is not criticism of the concept, but a dismissal of criticism of the concept. Section "Other criticism" should be labeled as simply "Criticism" since previous section does not address criticism. The "Denial of Privilege" section does not address the denial of privilege as a concept, but seems to assume privilege as a matter of fact. Deniers in this section do not deny privilege, but rather deny their own privilege.
- Yep. Regarding #4, I'd add that the term "denial" is a bad choice for a section name to begin with, implying that the "denier" is wrong or delusional (cf. "Holocaust denial" and the term "denial" in psychology). "Criticism" would be better. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I've attempted to address some of these issues, which appeared to me as well. I think to add some more varying perspectives at this point probably would benefit the article the most. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)