Talk:White privilege

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)

Wrong article Order? Merge? Re-write?

This article seems weak, I'm not sure why. Could be the lede is weak? Anyway, "History" here seems out of order. Learning about the history of a mystery topic here does not work. It is a complex current event, attitude, self-image, and much more, thus the lede is an insufficient foundation for History. The topic does not flow naturally from the passing of time. It should be properly defined first. Yes, I see there is already two History sections, thus re-ordering will be difficult. It's possible History needs to be merged gently into the definition?...at least not avoided. Separateness here could lead to the awkwardness?
--69.110.90.230 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Mollypitcher's proposed addition to the lead

This material has been reverted by two different editors in under an hour (new material italic):

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a disputed concept. As described in Theodore W. Allen’s pioneering analysis in the 1960s, these privileges were not a “benefit,” but were ruinous to the class interests of European-American workers and all working people. For others, however, it 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).

There are references but I took them out. You can see them in the last diff here. At a minimum this material does not belong in the lead because it is too specific for the lead and doesn't summarize material already in the article per WP:LEAD. At a maximum the material is being given extreme undue weight by being placed in the lead. I realize this article is in sorry shape and the lead doesn't adequately summarize the contents, but there's no excuse for adding random weasel wording to that lead, whether it's sourced or not.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What I (Molly Pitcher) say is factually accurate -- that should be important. The article lead should be more objective and recognize that there is legitimate difference on the issue of "white privilege/white skin privilege." Allen's work is extremely important and has considerable support. His "The Invention of the White Race" (two volumes) was recently republished by Verso Books and has been recognized as a "classic" by leading scholars. I read the comments by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and my submission does "generate interest" as a good lead should. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's comment about "adding random weasel wording" is totally uncalled for.Mollypitcher (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is from Molly Pitcher -- User alf laylah wa laylah (talk) expresses interest in talking -- however individual page says is away. Do you want to talk?Mollypitcher (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's no hurry, though. You read the part of WP:LEAD which says that it should generate interest. You should also read the part where it says that it should summarize material in the article. I think it'd be better if you wrote a section about Allen's work, put that into the article, and then possibly, if it's not undue weight, mention it in the lead. That's my opinion. Other editors are interested in the subject so please try to be patient.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with alf laylah wa laylah that the text in question presented a huge undue weight problem in the lead, especially the way it was placed before the stable, longstanding definition of white privilege. At absolute minimum, the term "white privilege" should be defined before criticism of the concept of "white privilege" is introduced. (I hope that makes sense.) And it's worth pointing out here that the lead already acknowledges criticism and debate surrounding the concept of white privilege. Putting the Allen info in the first sentence was too specific for the lead, to me, which is what gave it the undue weight. There is definitely room for mention of his work later in the article, but no specific scholar needs to be, or should be, given so much weight in the lead. Also I agree that there is no hurry here. This kind of discussion should be open for a while so anyone interested in the subject can participate. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is from Molly Pitcher – regarding the previous two comments – Some of Allen's contributions are already inserted in the article (if you go down a few paragraphs you will see them mentioned). If you look at my Molly Pitcher talk page you will see that in December 2012 I raised this issue of different interpretations of the topic and suggested a lead that was more accurate and that better (and more objectively) reflected the fact that there are differences in understanding of "white privilege/white skin privilege." Regarding “there’s no hurry” – I think it is about time (especially in light of my December effort) that the lead more accurately and objectively reflect thinking on the topic. Allen spent over 40 years writing on the topic and cites extensive primary sources, especially from 17th century Virginia, etc. What I write is accurate -- my lead is far more accurate and objective than the current opening paragraph, which does not recognize this difference of opinion on the topic Regarding Dawn’s comments – 1 The so-called “stable, longstanding definition of white privilege” does not reflect the thinking, inspired by Allen’s work and that of others, that led SDS (according to the NY Times in 1969) to call for “an all-out fight against ‘white skin privileges.” See Thomas R. Brooks, “The New Left is Showing Its Age, New York Times, June 15, 1969, p. 20 (this is cited in the article). 2. To refer to Allen’s work as “criticism of the concept of "white privilege"” – shows extraordinary misunderstanding of what Allen’s work is about.

Allen did pioneering work on “the concept of ‘white privilege” -- he was not a critic of “the concept”. He was a leading proponent of challenging “white privileges.” He was arguing that “white privileges” were real and that they were not in “white” workers class interest and that the privileges should be opposed by “white workers.”

I really encourage you, if you have not already done so – to read Allen. I also suggest that before so quickly deleting my documented contributions you read more of the history of the concept. See for example http://www.nathanielturner.com/tedalleninsights.htm Finally, I strongly recommend, if you don’t have a substantial reason for deleting my contribution, that you put it back in – for the reasons that it is accurate, that it is objective, and that it will “generate interest.”Mollypitcher (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

we present the content in proportion to the positions that they are currently held in academic circles. The proposed addition appears to be giving far too much prominence to a position that is not widely held today.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict), reply to Mollypitcher. But what about the issue that alf laylah wa laylah and I raised about undue weight, which is why we actually reverted your addition? Why does it need to be in the first sentences, preceding even the definition of the term? Why does Allen need to be the only person mentioned by name in the lead? Nobody here has said your edit was inaccurate or that it wouldn't generate interest, but generation of interest is far from the only consideration when crafting a Wikipedia article lead. And I wasn't referring to Allen's work, per se, as criticism of the concept of white privilege; I haven't misunderstood anything "extraordinarily" as you say. I was more referring your text, which changed the first sentence to White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a disputed concept, creating the impression that, well, it is a disuted concept, and that Allen, because he's mentioned right away, is one who disputes it. I really think there is too much in Allen's (or any specific scholar's) work to try to summarize it in one clear sentence, which is why the lead doesn't need to be and shouldn't be so specific. The article is very clear about Allen, thanks in part to your contributions in December, but I don't see the problem of undue weight in the lead as having been resolved. All that said, while I won't be the one to restore your text to the lead, I'm not going to get into an revert-war about it either, edit-wars are a waste of time and effort. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

see also WP:LEAD - the first sentence needs to describe what the subject of the article is. "its controversial" clearly fails at providing any useful information about the subject.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is from Molly Pitcher – In response to TheRedPenOfDoom – I think that your comment that Allen’s position “is not widely held today” reflects limited understanding of how influential Allen’s work is. It has received extraordinary praise from outstanding scholar and activists – see http://www.jeffreybperry.net/_center__i__font_size__3__font_color__sepia___b_5__the_invention_of_the_br_white_116386.htm

A simple Google search of “Theodore W. Allen” (in quotes) comes up with 245,000 results see https://www.google.com/search?q=theodor+w.+allen&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#client=firefox-a&hs=0L5&hl=en&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22theodore+w.+allen%22&oq=%22theodore+w.+allen%22&gs_l=serp.12..0i7j0j0i30l2.1107.4487.1.6132.2.2.0.0.0.0.71.138.2.2.0...0.0...1c.1.14.psy-ab.VaW5TdVlcuk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46751780,d.dmQ&fp=8526038e809b8fdf&biw=1247&bih=780 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollypitcher (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

work can be widely cited and influential in a particular period and still not reflect the current scholarly consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is from Molly Pitcher – in response to TheRedPenOfDoom –

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says that --

“Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.”

My sources are reliable, published, and significant.

Your statement in response to my talk that –

“’.. . . its controversial’ clearly fails at providing any useful information about the subject . . .” –

misquotes what I wrote. I never used the phrase that you quote ==

“its controversial” –

I used the phrase – it will “generate interest.” (This was drawn from a Wikipedia piece that it was suggested I read earlier in this talk).

This is Molly Pitcher in response to Alf–laylah –

The opening sentence of the current article -- "White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the set of societal privileges that white people are argued to benefit from . . .” is not fully accurate – and it therefore misleading.

It does not include or reflect the position that many important scholars and activists, including Allen, hold that the ruling class benefits from the system of “white skin privileges”, but that the “white” workers do not benefit from those “white skin privileges.”

The opening sentence of the current article takes as a given position of "white skin privilege" analysis – that “white” workers benefit. That is not agreed upon, and from the days of Allen's pioneering work it has not been agreed upon. Allen’s work on the topic argues otherwise and he contends that "white" workers’ interests would be better served by opposing “white skin privileges.” Other writers argue similarly.

Many important scholars and activists – see the page I linked to – argue that “white” WORKERS do not “benefit” from the privileges – that the privileges are a "poison bait" for workers, that they serve ruling class interests, not working class interests.

The difference centers around whether “white” working people benefit from “white race privileges” or not. Allen argued from a class analysis – that the privileges are not in “white workers interest” and that “white” workers should oppose them. He was clear that the ruling class did benefit from the system of “white skin privileges.”

I think it is wrong for this article to take as a given of the "white skin privilege" analaysis the position that white workers “benefit” from “white skin privileges.”

The article lead should reflect the fact that there are differences among those who write on “white skin privileges” about whether, or not, “white” workers benefit from these “race” privileges. It should not simply take that position that they benefit as a given of the “white skin privilege” analysis.Mollypitcher (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about your suggested lead phrase ("White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a disputed concept.") as being inappropriate in that it says nothing about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Molly Pitcher here -- I was commenting on your misquoting me.

Are you interested in correcting and improving the article -- I believe that have shown how the current lead is misleading? Or are you intent on keeping the current lead intact?Mollypitcher (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

and I have shown that your suggested change is WORSE than the current lead. If you want, suggest something else, but it will need to be very different than what you have been suggesting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Break:Is it a concept or a fact?

I think it is WORSE to be consciously misleading. That said, I think the lead would be improved by taking the following five words out of the opening sentence -- are argued to benefit from Mollypitcher (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No, White privilege is not any sort of fact that can be proved. it is construct through which to view and analyse. the 5 words are needed in this lead sentence to convey the non-factual-ness and indicate that it is piece of social critique. Those particular 5 words may not be needed in other formulations of a lead sentence that make the "construct"-ness of the concept apparent.

We are writing an encyclopedia article about the concept of White privilege, not trying to convince anyone that it is a fact.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TRPOD here (I hope that's an acceptable abbreviation).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is Molly Pitcher -- in response to TRPOD and Alf.Laylah -- Do you actually believe that “White privilege is not any sort of fact that can be proved”? Do you think “white only” primaries,” “lily-white” construction unions, etc. couldn’t be proved?

TRPOD's second sentence makes no sense – it reads – “Those particular 5 words may not be needed in other formulations of a lead sentence that make the ‘construct’-ness of the concept apparent.” Do you agree with that sentence, too, Alf.Laylah?

The views you express may be your personal convictions, but they shouldn’t dictate what can and what cannot appear in a Wikipedia article. I think we should strive for accuracy and objectivity and we should not knowingly mislead.

Finally, if you both believe that “white privilege” “is construct”, and, if you are interested in more on that topic, you may want to read Allen’s “Summary of the Argument of ‘The Invention of the White Race’” Part 1, beginning with No. 5, http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/allen.html where he writes the following --

Taking note of the earlier insights into "race" in America provided by African-American social critics such as W. E. B. Du Bois, James Baldwin, and Langston Hughes," the Chronicle of Higher Education in September 1995 reported that "Scholars from a variety of disciplines, "sociology, history, and legal, cultural, and literary studies," are attempting to lift the veil from whiteness."5 Just two years later, Stanford University professor George M. Frederickson, well-known teacher and writer on the history of relations between persons of African descent and those of European descent, asserted that "the proposition that race is 'a social and cultural construction,' has become an academic cliché."6

6. This trend, although it will surely experience a critical sorting-out of various interpretations it has produced, represents a great leap forward toward reducing the subject to rational dimensions as it concerns social scientists, by objectifying "whiteness," as a historical, rather than a biological category.

7. Nevertheless, the thesis of "race as a social construct," as it now stands, despite its value in objectifying "whiteness," is an insufficient basis for refutation of white-supremacist apologetics. For, what is to be the reply to the socio-biologist and historian Carl N. Degler who simply says that, "...blacks will be discriminated against whenever nonblacks have the power and incentive to do so...[because] it is human to have prejudice against those who are different."?7 Or, what if the socio-biologists say, "Fine, we can agree that racial ideology is a social construct, but what is your 'social construct' but an expression of genetic determinants--another version of Winthrop Jordan's 'unthinking decision'"?8

8. The logic of "race as a social construct" must be tightened and the focus sharpened. Just as it is unhelpful, to say the least, to euphemize racial slavery in continental Anglo-America as "the Peculiar Institution," instead of identifying the "white race," itself, as the truly peculiar institution governing the life of the country after emancipation as it did in slavery times; just as it is not "race" in general, that must be understood, but the "white race," in particular; so the "white race" must be understood, not simply as a social construct, but as a ruling class social control formation.

Mollypitcher (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do believe that "white privilege" cannot be "proved" in the same manner that one can "prove" gravity exists or one can mathematically "prove" that the square root of 4 is 2. But my belief or not DOES NOT MATTER ONE WHIT. what matters is that we represent - not "prove" that is NOT the function of an encyclopedia article - represent what the reliable sources have written about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel I can make constructive suggestions here, though this may be a bit of a digression. I do not intend to edit the article myself, as I am busy with other things.

I have struggled with the wording in the lead for some time. "theory" seems inadequate; my reading (grounded in the hard sciences) is that theories make testable predictions. I have offered "conceptual framework" before, and now offer "explanatory framework" or perhaps "analytical framework" but my ability to view social science literature is relatively limited, so I have been unable to find sources that refer to it in this way. Others may be able to, and I would encourage that.

So, my reading is that there are two intersecting issues here

1. there have been historical examples of privileges, explicitly or implicitly, legally extended only to white persons (this would be the factual part)
2. the idea of "white privilege" derived from critical theory is used as a lens by which to view historical and current events, but that is a post hoc analysis, and such as it is, does not make testable predictions as far as i can tell. (this would be the conceptual part)

That it does not make testable predictions is significant. My interpretation of the common meaning of "proof" is "something that been shown to make successful predictions about the future" and so it cannot be "proven" in this conventional sense. Many RS have observed things that are consistent with it, much as many RS have observed things that are consistent with biological evolution. It seems imperative that the scope of the article is clearly defined, so as to avoid intense and recurring disputes over "proof" defined in this way.

I think ideally, the article would make clear which portions are historical fact and which are analytical or critical, and address both of these without the weasel words which tend to creep in, particularly at the hands of IP or SPA editors. Splitting of the article may at some point be necessary to more clearly define scope. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Mollypitcher's re-adding of all the material I deleted

In this diff Mollypitcher readds material I deleted:

For almost forty years Allen offered a detailed historical analysis of the origin, maintenance, and functioning of “white-skin privilege” in such writings as: “White Supremacy in U.S. History,” (1973);<ref>Ted (Theodore W.) Allen, [http://www.sojournertruth.net/uafws.pdf “White Supremacy in U.S. History,”] A Speech Delivered at a Guardian Forum on the National Question, 28 April 1973, rpt. in “White Supremacy a Collection” (Chicago: Sojourner Truth Organization, 1976;</ref> “Class Struggle and the Origin of Racial Slavery: The Invention of the White Race" (1975);<ref>Theodore W. Allen, [http://clogic.eserver.org/2006/allen.html “Class Struggle and the Origin of Racial Slavery: The Invention of the White Race”] (Hoboken: Hoboken Education Project, 1975), republished in 2006 with an “Introduction” by Jeffrey B. Perry at Center for the Study of Working Class Life, SUNY, Stony Brook</ref> “The Invention of the White Race,” Vol. 1: “Racial Oppression and Social Control” (1994, 2012);<ref>Theodore W. Allen, [http://www.versobooks.com/books/1039-the-invention-of-the-white-race-volume-1 “The Invention of the White Race,” Vol. 1: “Racial Oppression and Social Control”] (Verso Books, 1994, 2012)</ref> “The Invention of the White Race,” Vol. 2: “The Origin of Racial Oppression in Anglo-America” (1997, 2012);<ref>Theodore W. Allen, “The Invention of the White Race,” Vol. 2: “The Origin of Racial Oppression in Anglo-America” (1997, 2012,ISBN 9781844677702)</ref> “Summary of the Argument of ‘The Invention of the White Race’” Parts 1 and 2 (1998);<ref>Theodore W. Allen, [http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/allen.html “Summary of the Argument of ‘The Invention of the White Race,’” Part 1], “Cultural Logic,” Spring 1998 and [http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/allen2.html “Summary of the Argument of ‘The Invention of the White Race,’” Part 2, “Cultural Logic,” Spring 1998</ref> “In Defense of Affirmative Action in Employment Policy” (1998);<ref>Theodore W. Allen, [http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/affirmative.html “In Defense of Affirmative Action in Employment Policy”] “Cultural Logic,” Spring, 1998)</ref> “‘Race’ and ‘Ethnicity’: History and the 2000 Census” (1999);<ref>Theodore W. Allen, [http://clogic.eserver.org/3-1&2/allen.html “‘Race’ and ‘Ethnicity’: History and the 2000 Census”], “Cultural Logic,” 2009</ref> and “On Roediger’s Wages of Whiteness” (Revised Edition)”;<ref>Theodore W. Allen, [http://clogic.eserver.org/4-2/allen.html “On Roediger’s Wages of Whiteness” (Revised Edition)”] (“Cultural Logic,” 2001).</ref>

I think that this descriptive list of the collected works of Theodore Allen belongs more properly in his own article. It overwhelms the paragraph and doesn't say anything concrete about white privilege itself. I think it should be removed. If not removed, it should be rewritten thoroughly so that it's sourceable to secondary sources which discuss the import of Allen's work. Sourcing each book to itself is not enough to establish either notability or relevance in my opinion. Thoughts? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)