Talk:White privilege

weasel words, again

The lead does not require weasel words like "are said to have" in the first sentence. It already includes criticisms of the concept that I would characterize as a bit WP:UNDUE. How long "are said to have" has been in the lead makes zero difference to me, it is not a GA or FA so the bar is not set any higher to change things. "are said to have would be, imho, violating WP:SPADE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:WEASEL. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 21:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

propose current language - "those societal privileges" or perhaps "the set of societal privileges". those who are easily offended by the implication that they might have privileges can interpret as "small" or "none". -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 21:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You are fond of calling things "weasily" whenever you don't like them. "Are argued" is neutral. It neither underwrites the existence of "white privilege," nor does it constitute a denial that "white privilege" exists. It simply acknowledges the controversy.

Any other language that is neutral is fine by me, but not language that ignores the fact that there IS an argument. You want it your way, UseTheCommandLine, which is NOT neutral. Please accept that several other editors do not agree with you. Apostle12 (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be great to rewrite the lede sentence without the word 'societal' which is at best obscure. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions? Apostle12 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

(sorry, keyboard on the blink) The current language of the lead already gives plenty of weight to detractors of the concept, enough that I currently consider it WP:UNDUE given that there the scholarly criticism of the concept is rather scant, and what little there is comes not from scholarly sources but from conservative media. Adding additional mitigating language in order to "acknowledge the controversy" completely ignores these facts. I would urge you to bring it to DRN or some other forum before making additional reversions. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

that should be "there are additional criticisms from outside the scholarly domain, but they are largely POVPUSH from conservative media". -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It is the first sentence we are talking about, which as you know is critical. "Are argued" has been a part of that sentence for months now, accepted by all. Why suddenly are you in a twit about it?Apostle12 (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Way premature for DRN. Why not live with an actual good faith discussion for awhile, giving the various editors time to note the controversy and respond? What's the hurry after all these months? DRN's are not supposed to be a substitute for good faith discussion (or didn't you notice that the last time you tried one, the editors turned on YOU?) Apostle12 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No. See previous archived discussions about the edit wars, around this very issue, which you instigated some time ago. Take it to DRN. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Apparently your memory is poor. Apostle12 (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Posted. And for the record, the length of time a phrase has existed in a page on WP is in no way evidence of its acceptance. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Administrator note This page is now protected from editing for a week. Hopefully that will give you all time to resolve this dispute, and to review WP:EW, taking care to notice the details, like that claiming consensus or lack thereof is in no way shape or form a free pass to edit war. I would have been equally justified in blocking the warring parties, keep that in mind when the protection expires. Edit warring is always the wrong thing to do and everyone who particpates in one is automatically in the wrong, so don't any of you go thinking you had the moral high ground here unless you stayed out of it entirely.

If the DRN discussion results in a consensus before the protection expires please either let me know or post a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP if I don't seem to be around. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for first sentence

Propose replacing current first sentence:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the set of societal priveleges that white people benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc).

With the following:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain race or ethnicity based inequalities such as those in social status or class, health or access to healthcare, political representation, or economics.

I don't think this is substantive enough a change to require a reference to the journal, as it is mainly a rewording. It may be useful to break off the reference to critical race theory, or perhaps provide a second reference. If it's broken out into a second sentence, that would allow the possibility of explaining that there are other historical antecedents of the concept. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this may be headed in the right direction. However, especially for the lede, I think the sentence should be simplified. For example, I think "ethnicity-based inequalities" includes race, so to say "race or ethnicity based inequalities" is unnecessary. Also I think we should not try to list specific "ethnicity-based inequalities," e.g. "social status or class, health or access to healthcare, political representation, or economics." Such inequalities cut both ways, with certain ethnicity-labeled inequalities favoring specific groups and other ethnicity-labeled inequalities disfavoring specific groups. To try to list ethnicity-based inequalities makes this a run-on sentence, and it also tends to be reductive of a rather long list, which leads toward over-simplification.

I could support:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain certain ethnicity-based inequalities.

Apostle12 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity are not the same. I was attempting to mirror the original sentence in its naming of specific spheres. Since I haven't gotten ahold of the article yet, i am loath to make changes to the sentence other than simple rewording. And technically, it is not a run-on sentence. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 02:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct, race and ethnicity are not the same. What I suggested is that ethnicity-based inequalities includes racial categories. Quoting from "Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting" (http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm):

"Anthropologically speaking, the concept of race is a relatively recent one. Historically, the term 'race' was ascribed to groups of individuals who were categorized as biologically distinct. Rather than developing as a scientific concept, the current notion of 'race' in the United States grew out of a European folk taxonomy or classification system sometime after Columbus sailed to the Americas. Increased exploration of far-away lands with people of different custom, language, and physical traits clearly contributed to the developing idea. In these pre-Darwinian times the observed differences--biological, behavioral and cultural--were all considered to be products of creation by God. It was in this intellectual climate that the perceived purity and immutability of races originated. Perceived behavioral features and differences in intellect were inextricably linked to race and served as a basis for the ranking, in terms of superiority, of races....The American Anthropological Association recognizes that classical racial terms may be useful for many people who prefer to use proudly such terms about themselves. The Association wishes to stress that if biological information is not objective, biological-sounding terms add nothing to the precision, rigor, or factual basis of information being collected to characterize the identities of the American population. In that sense, phasing out the term 'race,' to be replaced with more correct terms related to ethnicity, such as 'ethnic origins,' would be less prone to misunderstanding."

Among those ethnicity-based inequalities that would be difficult to consider within the white privilege conceptual framework:

The disproportionately high representation of African Americans among girls who rank high in self-esteem vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings (latina girls, northern European white girls, southern European white girls, Japanese girls, Chinese girls, Korean girls, Ashkenazi Jewish girls) with correspondingly lower rates of eating disorders, depression, and suicide.

The disproportionately high representation of Japanese, Chinese and Koreans who attend American institutions of higher learning vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings (Cambodians, Laotians, northern European whites, southern European whites, latinos, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and African Americans), with correspondingly higher rates of success earning bachelor degrees, masters degrees and doctoral degrees.

The disproportionately high representation of African American men (76%) among National Basketball Association players vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings - white European men 20%, latino men 3%, asian men 1%.

The disproportionately high representation of African American men (67%)among National Football Leage players vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings - white European men 31%, latino men 1%, and asian men 1%.

The disproportionately high representation of Ashkenazi Jews among American scientists in general and Nobel Prize science winners in particular vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings (northern European whites, southern European whites, asians, latinos, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and African Americans).

The disproportionately high representation of African Americans among those who contract STDs each year (syphilus, gonorrhea, chlamydia, venereal warts, and HIV/AIDS) vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings (northern Europeans, southern Europeans, Ashkenazi Jews, latinos, asians, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders).

The list goes on, as I'm sure will this discussion. Apostle12 (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I support UseTheCommandLines's proposed language for the first sentence. We don't necessarily need sources in the lede (I think it's discouraged). If necessary, we could source the connection to Critical Race Theory better in the body of the article. The only issue I have is with the word "based," as many argue that these inequalities are class based, or that although they have their origin in racial discrimination, they are not primarily perpetuated through those means any more. But perhaps this is nit-picking.

On another note, Apostle12, I think you're off topic here, and I'm not sure what you mean with some of the points above, especially the last one. They certainly could be interpreted in the wrong way. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

while content that is appropriately sourced in the body does not generally need to also be cited in the lead, for contentious content it is not only acceptable to have cites in the lead, it is beneficial to the stability of the article and to head off conflicts before they occur.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So far the White privilege article has cherry-picked differential outcomes (white people v. people of color) that could plausibly be linked to privileges that white people enjoy. My point is simply that many such differential outcomes do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege; I believe some relevant discussion should be included in the article. Apostle12 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a posting at AN/I where I discuss the above statement by Apostle12 and my extended wikibreak, which will commence now. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 16:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

The dab template should go below the neutrality tag.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: no it shouldn't, see MOS:LEAD#Elements of the lead - hatnotes go first of all. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's news to me, because generally, when the tags are added automatically, they're put at the top regardless of any hatnote that may be on the page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That suggests that the automatic process (please give an example) is in error, so  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. This should not be done unless both MOS:LEAD and WP:HNP change. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Privilege" is misspelled

In the first sentence, "privilege" is misspelled as "privelege". Could someone with administrator privileges fix the spelling? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This I am willing to do, so  Done --Redrose64 (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Something this article needs...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

OK, so if I'm a benefactor of white privilege (or male privilege, Christian privilege, etc.), then what am I supposed to do about it? Am I supposed to feel guilty? Am I supposed to stop doing something that I didn't even realize I'm doing? Do any of the authors of these scholarly articles even have advice for the privileged individuals who are overly privileged and who are screwing up the rest of society for the non-privileged groups? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is none of these people who made those books, nor are we a consulting group for such things. I suggestgoing to a Psychologist or see a life counselor and ask. We are a encyclopedia not a life discussion group.FusionLord (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't get it.

This page is written under the premise that white privilege is correct or something that is objectively present in reality. White privilege is a theory and any discussion of it must be framed as such. This is the most blatant violation of Wikipedia's rules of neutrality I have ever seen. It is patently obvious what kind of person wrote this article. This is something Wikipedia should avoid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.206.73 (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing for first sentence of the lede

The source provided ("White space, white privilege: Mapping discursive inquiry into the self" by Ronald L. Jackson II) is very long and the author's language is very dense, however it certainly addresses the topic of the first sentence, which reads "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain certain ethnicity-based inequalities." The following paragraph, and what follows, is particularly germaine.

"Presently, there is a resurgence of critical race studies which grapples with the protean nature of whiteness. Among these is Robyn Wiegman's (1994) American Anatomies. In this volume, Wiegman, an American studies scholar, posits that race is an American construct that captures individuals as visible economies. That is, human beings of various racial and cultural identities, in America, form a complex and regulated matrix designed to maintain what Stuart Hall (1997) names the "circuits of power and capital." In this instance, cultural capital is more than critical studies jargon translated to mean dividends for popular cultural production. The nature of cultural capital denotes divisions, resources, and competitive difference. When applied to human relationships, cultural capital mimics the destructive function of race. In the production of dichotomies such as high/low, good/bad, and White/Black, cultural spaces are marginalized, identities are constricted, and difference is devalued. As a result, a cultural subject is erected which becomes the exemplar of appropriateness. In America, whiteness is enacted from a state of subjectivity, and it must be critically examined as a position of being in order to understand the conditions that promote it as subject and Otherness as object."

I am certain there are other sources that could be provided, but this one seems on target to me. Apostle12 (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That's clear as mud. If the rest of the essay is like that, it doesn't support the lede at all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the language is very dense. Though I didn't supply this source (I think was supplied by UseTheCommandLine when she revised the lede last year), I read the entire piece and found the author's work instructive and relevant. We can probably find a better one. BTW, my attempt at supplementing this source was sincere - didn't see it as an "anonymous blog," though I admit I didn't look beyond its purported UCLA source. Apostle12 (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Just found the original paper, which discusses white privilege in the context of Critical Race Theory and its relevance to ethnicity/race-based inequalities.

"Eduardo Bonilla-Silva refers to this as “racism without racists” meaning that the overt bigot need not exist in order for racist policies and practices to continue (Bonilla-Silva 2006). Rather, racism has taken on a more subtle, covert form. This system of racial power (which is based on white privilege and white supremacy) supports the subordination of people of color and is reinforced by institutions such as the legal and education systems."

Apostle12 (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• The current lede...

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain certain inequalities associated with race or ethnicity.

...is not supported by cited sources. They do not define white privilege as a "conceptual framework", nor do they indicate that it is "derived from critical race theory".

Without supporting sources this sentence cannot remain (supporting sources are required by WP:V).

• This version of lede...

White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the set of societal privileges that white people benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc).

...was barely supported by the cited source.

It is, however, fully supported by the following sources...

• McIntosh is adept at describing the daily advantage white people have based on the color of their skin.
• Wildman (2000) discusses the characteristics of the privileged by saying they "define the societal norm, often benefiting those in the privileged group. Second, privileged group members can rely on their privilege and avoid objecting to oppression" (p. 53).
• Sue (2003) defines White privilege as "unearned advantages and benefits" given to White individuals based on a system that was "normed on the experiences, values, and perceptions" of White individuals (p. 7).
• Kendall (2006) describes White privilege as "an institutional, rather than personal, set of benefits granted to" (p. 63) people whose race resembles that of the people who are in power.
• White privilege has been defined by David Wellman as a system of advantage based on race.
• Paula Rothenberg defines White privilege as the other side of discrimination, meaning the opposite of discrimination.
• White privilege, specifically, is an institutional set of unearned benefits granted to White people.
• White privilege is a form of racism that both underlies and is distinct from institutional and overt racism.
• Experts define White privilege as a combination of exclusive standards and opinions that are supported by Whites in a way that continually reinforces social distance between groups on the basis of power, access, advantage, majority status, control, choice, autonomy, authority, possessions, wealth, opportunity, materialistic acquisition, connection, access, preferential treatment, entitlement, and social standing.

Refs

• Until sources can be located that clearly support the current lede, it would be best (i.e., policy) to restore a supportable version of the first sentence (via the sources above). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can take a stab at it then. The way I see it, all these sources talk around the issue of white privilege, yet none of them succinctly defines it. After reading enough sources, one develops a kind of holistic understanding of the phrase UseTheCommandLine introduced - a conceptual framework - but I agree this exact phrase appears nowhere. Nor does any other applicable phrase emerge: some that have been offered are "a system of advantage based on race," "an institutional set of unearned benefits," "a form of racism," and "a combination of exclusive standards and opinions."

For awhile, the first sentence read "White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the set of societal privileges that white people are argued to benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc)." (emphasis added) Are argued to at least acknowledged that there is some controversy surrounding the term; so far it may be the most neutral construction of the lede's first sentence.

Perhaps you can come up with something better. Apostle12 (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Structure of first sentence

Currently the first sentence reads:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain certain race- or ethnicity-based inequalities.

While I recognize the technical accuracy of the dashes if we are to include both race and ethnicity, they do make the structure a bit off-putting. Perhaps eliminating the dashes might help?:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain certain race or ethnicity based inequalities.

In a previous discussion I had suggested that, since ethnicity includes race we simplify the sentence to read:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain certain ethnicity based inequalities.

This was in keeping with a discussion at "Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting" (http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm):

"Anthropologically speaking, the concept of race is a relatively recent one. Historically, the term 'race' was ascribed to groups of individuals who were categorized as biologically distinct. Rather than developing as a scientific concept, the current notion of 'race' in the United States grew out of a European folk taxonomy or classification system sometime after Columbus sailed to the Americas. Increased exploration of far-away lands with people of different custom, language, and physical traits clearly contributed to the developing idea. In these pre-Darwinian times the observed differences--biological, behavioral and cultural--were all considered to be products of creation by God. It was in this intellectual climate that the perceived purity and immutability of races originated. Perceived behavioral features and differences in intellect were inextricably linked to race and served as a basis for the ranking, in terms of superiority, of races....The American Anthropological Association recognizes that classical racial terms may be useful for many people who prefer to use proudly such terms about themselves. The Association wishes to stress that if biological information is not objective, biological-sounding terms add nothing to the precision, rigor, or factual basis of information being collected to characterize the identities of the American population. In that sense, phasing out the term 'race,' to be replaced with more correct terms related to ethnicity, such as 'ethnic origins,' would be less prone to misunderstanding."

If the consensus is still to mention both race and ethnicity, I have no serious objection. Thucydides411 did voice a minor objection to "based." I wonder if we might consider:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain certain inequalities associated with race or ethnicity.

Think I'll try that. Comments?

P.S. Is tag still needed?

Apostle12 (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

My article petition has been deleted multiple times, now, and I'm starting to feel a little frustrated.

I have attempted to respectfully petition that this article be deleted many times, summarily, without so much as a reason, other than "vandalism and belligerence." With all due respect to the Wiki community, my frustration should not be taken as belligerence, and should not be the whole reason or even part of the reason for dismissing my points. They should be dismissed if they are incorrect, or if you agree that the concept of "White Privilege" is a valuable educational topic.

This is ironic. I find myself as a person who would commonly be referred to as a 'minority' arguing for the deletion of a page on "white privilege." I respectfully petition this page, and all similar pages like it, for deletion, the rationale for this will follow:

This page, and others like it, were created in the interest of opening minds, eyes, and discussions on an issue that the powers that be and the people they serve determined needed discussion: The apparent unfair status of whites, particularly white males, in society. For too long, mostly in the Western World, whites have had a position of power, and this power needed to be unseated, diplomatically, of course, in the interest of fairness.

However, while the motives of those who would seek to create a more egalitarian world are indeed good, it can be demonstrated that their results have not been as positive. Instead of creating a culture where everyone is respected, analyzed, and categorized by their merits alone, the "egalitarians," if such a term can be used, have caused the pendulum to swing, rather precipitously, in the reverse direction. In the name of equality, programs that are for "insert-race-here" only have sprung up by the dozens, and, as a beneficiary from these programs, I can hardly decry all of them, or even any of them, as being bad. However, I do think that their rationale needs to be re-examined. In the fledgling days post-Civil Rights, agencies such as the NAACP were formed, and laws such as Affirmative Action were passed, in order to bring the recently-freed and very-recently equalized Black peoples in educational line with the rest of society. I am not calling for the end of the NAACP, because there are still very real cases of racism in the world, and even in America, and those need to be investigated.

But, what has seemed to happen as Blacks, and all minorities, get greater power and better status in America, instead of seeking to better themselves and "show up" "the white man", which is a dream I certainly share in from time to time, we have minorities sinking to the same petty level as their previous white oppressors. Eric Holder deliberately refusing to prosecute Black Panthers intimidating voters going to vote in 2008 is but one example. "Thug Life", and "Gangsta Culture", are others. Why is it, among the Black community, acting or talking "white", is a pejorative term? Why is it considered negative to stand up straight and wear clothes that fit? Why is it, that in the cities with the toughest gun laws in America, Black-on-Black crime is still rampant? Why do Blacks commit the majority of crimes? It's not institutional racism. Why do so many Blacks take out their rage on whites? Why are there so many Black-on-White rapes, but no White-on-Black rapes? And that is simply one "minority" community, of which America houses hundreds. But that's just the negative light.

In America, despite what some may tell you, according to a study that can be found here: http://www.oecd.org/berlin/4750353.pdf the Anglophone countries are actually the most accepting and open-minded when it comes to minorities. And further, America is alone in the world in trying to use affirmative action and other associated programs to lift minorities up. Respectfully, in conclusion, while there is no denying that America, and all of the Western world, can continue to make progress on the idea of racial equality, shaming whites with this nonsensical idea of "White Privilege" would be as inane as someone going to a majority Han Chinese country and claiming "Chinese Privilege," or going to any one of the African nations and crying about "African Privilege". Claiming "racism" against another race for any minor slight will only have the long-term goal of watering down the word until it means nothing, and only serves to sow seeds of bitterness and resentment between peoples that could be getting along in peace and prosperity. Any privilege one has is a result of their circumstances, and until we can learn to control the flow of time or become gods, the circumstances of ones birth are left entirely up to chance. What you choose to do after that is what you control. 129.255.229.196 (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the concept of white privilege, even if everything you say is true, is one that people need to be able to look up somewhere. Even if white privilege doesn't exist at all and even if the existence of the concept is bad and has bad consequences, people will want to know what the phrase means. The key is that the concept is widely discussed, so should have an article. If you really want to get it deleted, you should read up on WP:AFD and take it there. Your proposed deletion templates aren't going to do the trick. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@IP 129.255.229.196, the advice to review AFD procedures and try that as the appropriate venue is spot on. For that matter, so is the rest of "alf's" explanation; even though many of your individual assertions may be true, the fact remains that "the Theory of White Privilege" exists. Whether it is "true" or not, it is widely accepted and discussed in certain academic circles and there is no real question that we should maintain an article on the topic.

Our job isn't to judge the truth or accuracy of academic theories, but to relate, as neutrally as possible, what recognized authorities have said on the subject, both "pro" and "con". We leave it to the reader to form their own opinions and conclusions. That being said, I think many editors would agree that the tone of the article often strays from neutrality. I also recall past complaints about a lack of criticism which may still need attention.

Since it is unlikely that this page would be deleted at an AfD, the best thing to do is help improve the article: try to find new information from Reliable Sources that support your some of your points and they can be added to it. Or, find something in the article you think needs improvement and use the talkpage to make a specific suggestion for changes. Your participation would be welcome. Doc Tropics 01:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)