Talk:White privilege

POV banner

@MagicatthemovieS: you inserted the POV banner to the article but did not raise any concerns at talk. Would you care to explain what issue you have with the POV of this article? Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The article should include some criticisms of the concept of white privilege to be considered truly neutral.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

I mean it actually does. See for example this recent inclusion, which was discussed here. [1]. So I'm going to go ahead and remove the banner thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean that we need to include some authors who don't believe that white privilege exists.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

(edit conflict)Per your recent edit summary I'd suggest you review WP:PROFRINGE and if you can find a source that isn't WP:FRINGE that makes that unlikely assertion, we can discuss it here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro isn't fringe, is he?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Um... yes he is. And his uninformed opinion is WP:UNDUE in an article on a sociological concept regardless. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A significant note: a BA in political science does not give one any due weight in an article on sociology and that's the best qualification this particular racist activist can muster. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Is Jordan Peterson fringe? What would classify a scholar as not-fringe?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Good god yes. I think you might be looking for Conservapedia. And you can start by looking for somebody who actually studied sociology - as this is a sociological concept. Peterson is a clinical psychologist and an amateur philosopher. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

To be fair a line or two about this might be OK. Fringe does not require us to ignore fringe views, just not to give them undue prominence. I think a line like "And according to (the widely discredited (source)) Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson white privilege is a myth".Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Neither Shapiro nor Peterson are WP:DUE any significance here; they are uneducated in the subject matter, unaffected by it and directly profit from their contrarian hot-takes. This might be due on the articles about both of these notable persons. But it's not due here. Because they are irrelevant to the discourse surrounding the term. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Due talks about significant viewpoints not qualified ones.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Jason Manning and Bradley Campbell say that white privilege is a hoax in The Rise of Victimhood Culture. They are sociologists.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

I am unfamiliar with Manning and Campbell. Is any of their work available online? Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The book I mentioned can be accessed via Google Books.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

(edit conflict)I've done some reading, and their association with the Pure Sociology guy makes me a little skeptical, and I am also skeptical of anybody who gets glowing praise from the leading phrenology blog of the English speaking world however they may at the very least be due mention. How would you include their commentary on their novel "Victimhood Culture" concept? Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

After further review of Manning and Campbell, while I may disagree with their theoretical approach, they don't appear to be fringe figures and are probably due mention. So the question becomes how and where would you prefer to mention them. Please propose a draft. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I should note that I tracked down an excerpt of the monograph you mentioned and they don't seem to dispute that white privilege exists; rather they argue that the citation of that is part of the movement toward a novel moral paradigm. Again, this may be due inclusion here; having an understanding of precisely what you are planning on citing from the book and where might help with that. But if you want to cite them for the claim that any mainstream sociologists disbelieve white privilege exists, I'm afraid that may fail verification. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the appropriate way to look at this is to look for secondary sources rather than the primary ones being bandied about. The primary sources used in the article right now are used because they are cited extensively by secondary sources. The works by Shapiro, Peterson, and Manning & Campbell don't seem to have much independent notice, if I'm not mistaken. Can someone point to relevant experts who have written secondary sources about these people and their publications in the context of the subject of this article? jps (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I told a joke and it wasn't even that funny but it's also kind of off-topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do people dunking on Shapiro on Twitter for being a twit count as secondary sources? <ducks> Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Taking the jesting question seriously, there might well be circumstances where tweets by subject-area experts dunking on Shapiro would be acceptable per WP:SPS. I don't have much experience with Twitter myself, but my impression is that individual tweets can be assembled into long threads that end up being basically blog posts in a mildly inconvenient form. Then the question becomes not what website the dunk happens to be published on, but how scholarly the dunk itself is. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Generally not. There's a bit of a running joke in leftist twitter of making memes insulting Shapiro's self-certainty of genius (as he so often says shockingly dumb things). They would not be considered reliable sources. And generally most sources outside of the US conservative echo chamber are content to completely ignore Shapiro as being inconsequential. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC) If some serious source had noticed/participated in/analyzed this meme-making, we could write about it somewhere in Wikipedia, but the relevance to this page seems dubious. For a source to be relevant to this page, the source would have to be writing about white privilege and mention Shapiro as either an object lesson or someone worthy of addressing. As far as I can tell, there is nothing going there. jps (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

restricting critique (or indeed support) of white privilege to sociologists is untenable as this would exclude much of the critique and would give undue weight to the proponents of a sociological theory. We must judge each source on its merits. Furthermore the article is littered with sources offering support for white privilege which are not from sociologists, so in practice I am concerned that this claim is being used as a tactic to limit critique.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The limitation is on the basis of independent notice by reliable sources, not on the basis of whether the author of the source is a sociologist. Critique (and support) should only be included when it has been noticed by independent sources. jps (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

agreed. Follow the trail and you will see I am responding to Simonm223 (talk) erroneous assertions limiting reliable sources.Keith Johnston (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I look above and I see links for your independent notice to such dubious outfits as reason.com -- not exactly known for legitimate critique of this kind of concept. jps (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

My argument was that the opinion of professional trolls and amateur philosophers was not WP:DUE here and that Peterson and Shapiro have WP:FRINGE views on this sociological concept which are exacerbated by their having no expertise in this field of the social sciences. Simonm223 (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Our job is to find relevant reliable sources. Your opinion on Peterson is not WP:DUE, only reliable sources opinion is. If you can find reliable sources which question their validity then we can debate them. In any event such a debate needs to be rooted in a specific request for a change in the article and general discussions serve little value. Getting back to the point: I agree this article should have a POV banner because it should, but does not yet, include relevant criticisms of the concept of white privilege to be considered truly neutral.Keith Johnston (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

My point is that Peterson is not a relevant reliable source. His opinions on various subjects may be WP:DUE on his own page, but absent secondary sources indicating his opinions are of lasting significance to this topic, they're not relevant here. Furthermore, Peterson should be treated in accordance with WP:FRINGE guidelines with regard to how we address his opinion of the subject. IE: If his view is found to be notable, it has to be contextualized that it is opposed to the mainstream academic perception. Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Keith Johnston: The source you are proposing to include is essentially a study about how some (white) people react to being taught about white privilege in a (semi-)controlled social/political psychology experiment. The relevance of this to the concept itself is not exactly clear from any source I've seen. To draw an analogy, I have seen many studies which describe the way teaching climate change in various fashions has affected people of various political persuasions. You won't find mention of these on the climate change article because it is a separate topic from actually explaining the concept itself. If there were some sources which somehow said that this study was relevant to defining the concept of white privilege or that it was relevant to certain white privilege scholarship, this would be a different story. jps (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

What Simonm223 and jps said. XOR'easter (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources you are referring to have been added to this section in error. They belong to the section above. To be constructive are you proposing the creation of a separate section or page covering 'white privilege in practice"? I might be tempted to support such. After all there is a significant difference in 'marxism' to that of 'marxism in practice', albeit given many still make the argument that the theory is the source of the practical problems its not always obvious how to separate out the two. What I would not support is removing this reference and not creating a separate page or section, as this would further reduce the neutrality of this already woefully biased page. If you wish to continue this discussion this might best be done on a separate talk page section to avoid confusion. Keith Johnston (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm proposing nothing here. It was you who asked me to refer to the above conversation, and I'm giving my opinion. Your claim that this page is biased because it doesn't include sources which do not speak to (nor are referred in) the copious scholarship surrounding this topic. Those sources might be useful for some other context (an article on the author, for example), but excising such sources per WP:WEIGHT, WP:PSTS, or WP:FRINGE does not violate WP:NPOV. jps (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. Furthermore, it's worth noting that the only actual reference provided is a WP:PRIMARY source that did not support the assertion made by the editor who originally proposed the POV tag (that white privilege does not exist) as that source situated white privilege as being a locus of the emergence of a novel moral paradigm ("Victimhood Morality") and critiqued white privilege as overly broad as those researchers were operating from a theoretical basis that all privilege is situational. If their work has been addressed in reliable secondary sources (which my reading yesterday suggested it might be - there's plenty of commentary in well-known non-reliable sources but I didn't go through anywhere near all the reviews and such), it may in fact be due here, as I said yesterday.

Beyond that one source, no other sources have been brought forward. Shapiro (a conservative political activist) and Peterson (a somewhat notorious clinical psychiatrist and motivational speaker) were brought up, and I mentioned that their positions on this social science concept would be considered WP:FRINGE but no actual references were provided, and when I asked the original placer of the tag what edits they might intend specifically, they said nothing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, good points. While I agree with the POV tag I also agree it cannot be justified without reference to specific and numerous RS. In my experience on this page it is a better use of time to take such RS and consider each individually and on its merits. Keith Johnston (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223 -- It is more misleading to fail to include such a banner than to include it. Ergo, on balance, this banner should be included. The substance or veracity of the countervailing views or opinions should be addressed as a separate question. The response to such a perceived lack of veracity of these opinions should NOT be to remove the banner, but rather to simply address the substance of the views themselves. This preserves the value that the banner brings while also contextualizing the countervailing opinions by raising awareness that such views are themselves disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenwiliams (talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Intellectuals and Race

This is interesting and worth including.

In his book, Intellectuals and Race, Thomas Sowell agues that privilege represents an effort by the intelligencia to "downplay or discredit achievement by verbally transforming it into privilege".

Full quote is:

"The very concept of achievement fades into the background or disappears completely in some of the verbal formulations of the intelligencia, where those who turn out to be more successful ex poste are depicted as being privileged ex ante. How far this vision can depart from reality was shown by a report titled 'Ethno-racial inequality in the City of Toronto', which said "The Japanese are among the most privileged group in the city because they were more successful economically than either other minorities there or the white majority'. What makes this conclusion grotesque is a documented history of Japanese discrimination in Canada where people of Japanese ancestry where interned during the second world war longer than Japanese Americans...Efforts of the intelligencia to downplay or discredit achievement by verbally transforming it into privilege are by no means by no means confined to the Japanese minority in Canada." Intellectuals and Race, pp52-53, Basic Books (12 Mar. 2013) 978-0465058723

See also Ethno-racial Inequality in the City of Toronto https://povertyandhumanrights.org/docs/ornstein_fullreport.pdf

Keith Johnston (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure that this is relevant here, but the passage seems reminiscent of model minority. jps (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It might be helpful in the article on Thomas Sowell himself, which says very little about that particular book, but Sowell seems better known for other things, and I can't find much evidence that this specific argument, or the book that contains it, got real traction among scholars. XOR'easter (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Keith Johnston the Thomas Sowell information would be an excellent addition here -i.e.: facts backed by real data. The article on "white privilege" contains plenty of entries from non-scholars/bloggers currently. For example: check Gina Crosley-Corcoran's opinion for the Huffington Post. There's no valid reason to not including such data backed examples.. Here's an article presenting the ideas from the book in a reliable source. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to call into question that site's status as a "reliable source." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to call into question the reliability of opinions from the Huffington Post, too? Because those are used as sources for the article. Daily Beast seems to have quite a history of controversies themselves and even the New York Times once brought us stories about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I mean, if you want to argue that Daily Beast, NYT and HuffPo are not reliable sources, have at it. But there's a vast difference between news media making mistakes, and a company deliberately spreading propaganda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The point is that the anecdotal accusation you throw around is anything but proper evidence against the reliability of Real Clear Politics and accusing them of 'deliberately spreading propaganda' is fringe at best. By comparison, the Daily Beast has been involved in multiple controversies and is a relatively young company. So is Huffington Post which is not labeled as a generally reliable source by Wikipedia. Quote from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources "There is no consensus on the reliability of HuffPost. As HuffPost is a newer publication, some editors prefer to use reliable sources with more established reputations. Some editors believe the site reports with a political slant, which makes it biased or opinionated. HuffPost's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher." --ColumbiaXY (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Then take it up at WP:RSN, as I said earlier. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I had a look at the WP:RS pages and found nothing there supporting your claim about Real Clear Politics deliberately spreading propaganda. Instead, I did find material warning about the "reliability" of The Daily Beast or Huffington Post. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant. RealClearPolitics isn't the issue, but while I'm here I'll point out that the story has been picked up by the Chicago Tribune[2], Defense One[3] which is published by Atlantic Media who publish The Atlantic magazine, and The Verge.[4]. But the real problem is the author, and looking at Thomas Sowell#Negative he's certainly not a reliable source for this purpose. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

On what basis is the author not a reliable source? Rather he is an author published by a respected publishing house, a widely respected American economist and social theorist and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford. Keith Johnston (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you not notice the criticism? Not respected by all of his peers. Even the paleoconservative Paul Gottfried is critical of the book. It's also WP:UNDUE I can't find any discussion of it in reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The criticism by Richard Coughlin is particularly damning, as is the critique by Bernadette Chachere. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then lets contextualise his critique by including the countervailing view. No reliable source is above critique. Keith Johnston (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Do you have any specific rs refuting Sowell's assertions on white privilege? Id be happy to include this. Keith Johnston (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Keith Johnston - I fail to see how that is fair enough. Bernadette Chachere does not look like much of a scholar or researcher. Her critique of Sowell's work only got 2 citations in more than 35 years -none of which is in a high impact scientific publication- and, of all her published papers, only one seems to have more than 5 citations - a range typically reserved for more fringe authors. By contrast, Sowell has dozens of works that get between 200 and more than 1300 citations (this alone is more than all the citations Richard Coughlin gets for all his work). Just because some relatively obscure authors challenge some of Sowell's arguments it does not mean they've been completely invalidated and do not deserve to be mentioned on wikipedia. Even if Chachere and Coughlin would be in the same academic league with Sowell, just because they have different opinions than Sowell shouldn't mean that Sowell's arguments should be excluded, especially when the Sowell arguments proposed for inclusion here are different from most of the ideas attacked by its critics. Long debates and challenging ideas is common in fields such as economy, political science, social science, etc. What is worrisome is the tendency of some editors not familiar with these fields to give undue weight to some claims, even when they come from more obscure academics, while trying to exclude more cited authors they don't like --ColumbiaXY (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed and thank you. I meant fair enough insofar as, if there is rs disputing Sowell's claims, then it could be included alongside his claims. What you have made clear is there is no convincing evidence of such rs .Keith Johnston (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Change the main definition

Should the main definition address the fact that it happens mainly in western society where the majority of people are white?

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances in western countries.

Cause social studies on the issue have been mainly done on western countries and unless there are robust scientific proof that this happens in any other part of the world it should be addressed. Byulwwe (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It's somewhat iffy whether we should be calling South Africa part of the "West" - it's generally considered part of the Global South. And that's one of our key examples, so no. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes! There's no data to support the existence of so-called "white privilege" in China, Japan, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and many other countries. Not including such geographic distinctions would only help promote a fallacy of reification. An Armenian in Turkey will not enjoy the same benefits as an American or a Brit. Much of what is being attributed to "white privilege" globally is backed by opinion (fallacy of reification) and is used to disguise some benefits white americans, canadians and a few others enjoy. Worse, the current definition is biased towards interpretations (some debatable) constructed in parts of Western academia (Western ideological bias).--ColumbiaXY (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Your proposed changes are WP:WEASEL and, honestly, WP:BLUESKY - "white privilege isn't a major social force in places where white people aren't dominant" is rather missing the forest for the trees. And as I mentioned, it's not just an "in the West" phenomenon considering that colonial areas of Africa, such as South Africa, present this phenomenon. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Personal experience, but I have seen white Westerners receive additional benefits over non-white Westerners in Asia. For example, at one university China, one teacher who was black wasn't allowed to use her university's gym facilities because the staff refused to believe that she was a teacher from America and not a student from Africa (even after she showed her ID). Me? As long as an area wasn't guarded by gunmen and covered with signs saying "no entrance" in English, I was allowed to wander wherever I wanted (guards with billyclubs and signs in Chinese? No one's gonna stop the white guy, except to try to take a selfie with him). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

So when in Asian country white are preferred over Asian or black that is white privilege while Affirmative action when black and Hispanic are preferred over white that is called “diversity" and progressive. Byulwwe (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Still I don’t see study claiming white privilege in Asian. And it’s a joke that without study you take it as truth.

This page is just biased. Byulwwe (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

and see 

Substitute "fair skin" for white and you will definitely find a bias in favor of fair skin in some areas, eg India.[5] and see Discrimination based on skin color. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Why substitute when they don't refer to the same thing? The lead paragraph says "White privilege is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people" and points to the wikipedia definitions for concepts like "white people" and "non-white people". The wikipedia article on skin color discrimination you mention often talks about something else - i.e. "People in the western hemisphere have long characterised east Asians, specifically Chinese and Japanese people, as "yellow", but the Chinese and Japanese seldom describe their skin color in that way.[22] The Japanese traditionally used the word shiroi – meaning "white" – to describe the lighter shades of skin in their society." - that section talks about subsets of East Asian populations (especially in the references to cultural habits between 8th-12th Century) and not about Western Europeans or whatever. So, is this article and its lead supposed to accurately reflect data & research? Because conflating definitions and editorializing look like POV-pushing to me. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

"Concept"

Why is it controversial to describe white privilege as a concept? This is a very Americocentric viewpoint, and is not consistent with the content of the rest of the article.--Correctus2kX (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

By saying that you want to describe this as a concept because it's Americocentric, it appears you are saying that you want to use this term to subtly downplay the legitimacy of the term. This is a non sequitur. It doesn't matter if, according you as an editor, this is universal or not. Further, this violates WP:NPOV. "Concept" or not, using filler language to implying something about this term isn't appropriate. Additionally, you are also ignoring the multiple examples cited in the article which apply outside of American, such as apartheid and the White Australia policy. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not qualified like that. It should at least state 'in some societies' or 'in some countries'. There are many regions where the concept has no relevance whatsoever. The American experience is being presented as universal here. Correctus2kX (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That still has nothing to do with adding empty filler-words to the first sentence. It is a "concept" in the same way that almost anything could be called a concept, but emphasizing this doesn't provide any useful information to readers. Instead it is just an excuse to add subtle editorializing. Your claim that it has no relevance in some regions is vague, disputable, and irrelevant to this dispute. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Not all "concepts" are equal so let's not pretend they are. Concepts in Physics, rigorously defined and supported by science and mountains of empirical data, are not equivalent to concepts in sociology -which can be vague definitions, are not exactly rigorously defined, and have plenty of criticism from Scientists and intellectuals. The current formulation in the first paragraph misleads users into believing a politicized term in the West is actually a hard fact all over the world, one that applies to all "whites", regardless of their nationality, religion and so on. Needless to say but this articles fails massively in providing any Scientific evidence supporting the global existence of "white privilege" as currently defined in the article. Under the article's "Global" section -for example- the lack of evidence is masked by claims -of undue weight- like "One author states that American white men are privileged almost everywhere in the world, even though many countries have never been colonized by Western Europeans" which references someone's opinion in the Guardian and some paper of no scientific value. Even if white americans were privileged all over the world, this is anything but enough in supporting the vast generalization in the article lead. The article lead should properly define the concept, as supported by existing evidence and not make claims not backed by evidence. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This has come up before, and will surely come up again, on this talk page. "White privilege" is the privilege that favors all white people, but not in all situations or places. As one very limited but very real example, all people identified as 'white' by the Apartheid South African government had legal privileges over those identified as non-white. This was a "hard fact", but it does not mean that white people always had it better than non-white people in every way, or that white people's accomplishments somehow "didn't count" or something. The "privilege" doesn't mean "free pass". While some may use it that way casually or thoughtlessly, that is not the way the term is used by most academics, so that's not what this article is saying.

Saying something is a "concept" doesn't mean something is rigorously defined, even in physics. Commentary about a lack of rigor in the humanities has also been made on this page before, and same as before, this absolutely isn't the place for this discussion.

Since your summary of the "concept" of white privilege is not consistent with the summary provided by the article, and you have not provided any additional sources, there is little benefit to continuing this discussion. Grayfell (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a phenomenon as described in the article, but we don't need to use the word in the lead. Doug Weller talk 07:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

ColumbiaXY is quite correct. It is a sociological theory open to debate. To present it as a fact is editorialising. Can you support ignoring its theoretical routes via RS? Keith Johnston (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the word "theory". That said, you need actual reliable sources that would dispute that the theoretical elements of white privilege (such as the "backpack" concept) fail to accurately describe the phenomena that are under discussion (pay gaps, differential law enforcement, microaggression, etc.) Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The failure of conservatives with a poor grounding in social sciences is in assuming that the presence of theory means the existence of the phenomena are open to debate when that's not actually the case. Simply put, the theory is the why not the what. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong! It's a logical fallacy to ask someone to prove a negative of your choosing -you're using the old trick of the argument from ignorance. What needs to be done is for this article to present actual proof -aka data and research, not sociological definitions and someone's opinion in the Huffington Post- supporting its claims, especially the hypothetical white privilege that here is presented as something almost universal, irrespective of ethnic or national background which we are to believe exists in all countries despite the absence of research to prove it. Until such evidence to support the worldwide validity of the hypothesis becomes available, the definition should properly attribute this concept to its sociological origins. Your vague claims about "grounding in social sciences" are weasel words and an argument from false authority, especially given the decades long replication crisis dominating the field. You should produce evidence that support the theoretical elements you talk about -not ask others to produce RS of your personal liking that dispute those theoretical claims.--ColumbiaXY (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Your oft-cited concern for the replication crisis is veering dangerously into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused. Gravity is a phenomenon, with a theory that conceptualises it. White privilege is a phenomenon with various sociological theories explaining various aspects of it.[6] It can be conceptualized in a variety of ways. The thing is, like gravity, it's real. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller - I don't think comparing anything in sociology to Gravity is fair. A phenomenon in Physics is not equivalent to what people colloquially call "phenomenon", or to what sociologists, economists or pundits might call a phenomenon. Most theories end up either being invalidated by experiments or are not backed by empirical data or don't properly generalize ("White privilege" is more likely to be like those than like Gravity). "White privilege" is a concept defined in sociology, an umbrella term that has been criticized by economists, social scientists and other academics, especially and when applied globally. Gravity works across scales (though not all) and throughout the observable universe. About "white privilege" there isn't much data supporting its alleged existence across large geographical areas (China, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, etc) and the observable consequences it tries to explain are also explained, at times better, by competing ideas (relating to class, nationality, ethnicity, etc). --ColumbiaXY (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 you often try to disrupt debates by arbitrarily invoking policies you don't seem to understand too well. Your replies are snark and polemical but almost never of much substance. Pointing to the abysmal track of the research in social sciences is relevant when discussing concepts imported from that field, especially when those concepts are challenged by other academics, are not back by data that supports the intended generalizations, and so on. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I see we're at the "sociology isn't real science" part of the debate, so I think we can close this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

And when someone with 99 edits says that an editor with over 11,000 edits doesn't understand policy... In any case, this is going nowhere and I agree that WP:DEADHORSE - an essay, not even a guideline let alone policy) is an appropriate description. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Doug, I don't see how edit-counts are relevant to the point being made. It looks like they're being used for nitpicking, as a pretext to avoid answering the real issues being raised on the subject we were discussing. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No, we're at the part of the debate where you discard a well documented phenomenon while not addressing the fundamental problems of this article: (1) that many claims are extracted from opinions written by non-scholars and (2) the sweeping generalizations made in the definitions are not backed by data or research. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Gina Crosley-Corcoran in Huffpost, RS?

I am dubious that Gina Crosley-Corcoran writing in the Huffington Post is RS. What are you views? He profile is below and she has written one article on Huffpost. Even accounting for the self-deprecating and tongue-in-cheek style of the profile I am not clear that she has sufficient expertise or that her article had sufficient impact to merit its prominence.

Gina Crosley-Corcoran, CD(DONA), CCCE is a former-rocker-chick-turned-mom, a blogger, and a busy birth worker. While finishing a Master of Public Health in Maternal Child Health, she attends births as a labor doula and travels the country teaching workshops to other professionals. On her blog, she delivers raw stories of her experiences as a “feminist breeder” crafted with angst, humor, and a little profanity. Her work can also be seen in the anthology "The Good Mother Myth" out on Seal Press (January 2014.) At home, Gina is a mother of three spirited children and wife to a bilingual middle school teacher who laughs at all her jokes. Keith Johnston (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What is "entry"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Under the section - white fragility -the entry is: Gina Crosley-Corcoran in her Huffington Post article, "Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person", says that she was initially hostile to the idea that she had white privilege, initially believing, "my white skin didn't do shit to prevent me from experiencing poverty", until she was directed to read Peggy McIntosh's "Unpacking the invisible knapsack". According to Crosley-Corcoran, "the concept of intersectionality recognizes that people can be privileged in some ways and definitely not privileged in others".[30] Keith Johnston (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it is published under huffpost/entry. This this is clearly a subsection of their site, what is it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/explaining-white-privilege-to-a-broke-white-person_b_5269255 Keith Johnston (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the question. We're asking what the "Entry" section of Huffpo is for. Editorials? Reviews? Reporting? That's important to determining if this an RS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Its not obvious to me what the "entry" is from reading the article. Perhaps a more regular user of the Huffpost can determine it, otherwise it is underdetermined. Keith Johnston (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the token ‘entry’ appears in the url doesn’t mean it’s a subsection, or that it’s “published under” it. It could exist for purely technical reasons having to do with how their articles are uploaded, maintained, advertised, tracked, or other reasons. I don’t see the word Entry or anything like it in the rendered page, so the assumption should be that it is meaningless for the purposes of this discussion section. Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I did a cursory check, and it does appear that individual huffington post articles are housed at /entry/ - the content type being sorted is individual article vs index or landing page. Simonm223 (talk)

It says she is a "contributer", [[7]]. So it looks like a blog.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

At the very least it's an opinion piece. However I'd suggest, considering Huffington's complicated relationship with free content, it's difficult to ascertain whether it's a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I was basing that on what the page said "The guidelines below are sent to all new and prospective bloggers from the outset.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That's assuming that Huffington doesn't call all people, paid and volunteer, edited and ignored, "contributors" - and frankly they kind of do call all people, paid and volunteer, edited and ignored, "contributors." Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

[[8]], not listed as a "contributor" contribution, nor is this [[9]]. Its clear from this that "contributor" has a specific meaning. And that seems to be "not in our name".Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, thats useful. It seems fair to conclude from this discussion that it has not added to Gina Crosley-Corcoran's standing as rs. Given this I propose to remove it unless anyone wants to make the case for it? Keith Johnston (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Nah, seems low quality. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Social media era

This article unhelpfully uses the term: 'social media era' in its narrative section. As it comes after the section on 2000s I can only assume it refers to the 2010s. This is not a commonly used term that I am aware of. It is also confusing as commentary on white privilege after 2010 may have little or nothing to do with social media- such as the publication of new research or books. I suggest replacing this with "2010s". Keith Johnston (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Factual or Theoretical

I'm just a bit curious. Why does this article present White privilege as if it were an established fact, while the article on Societal privilege presents it as if it were a theory? It seems that nobody is really addressing this on either talk page. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

To be constructive do you have reliable sources which say that White privilege is a theory? Can you link to them? What changes do you suggest making? Keith Johnston (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that we make the two articles more consistent. I am not informed on the subject, as I do not have the money to pay for all of these studies, but I do think that it is pretty obvious that an Encyclopedia as reliable as Wikipedia should never contradict itself to this extent. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• It appears that the article on Social privilege was recently edited to turn it into a theory. Please see changes from Aug 2019, especially in the lead: [10]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

We've discussed the non-theoretical nature of white privilege on this page several times before, including here.--Carwil (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Keith Johnston -- The default is that the claim is merely that - a claim. The onus is on the speaker of the assertion in question to show that the assertion is anything more than a claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenwiliams (talk • contribs) 01:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The Year in Hashtags: 2014: prominence and rs doubts

I am concerned over the prominence and reliability of the Sunnivie Brydum source in the lede. The section is:

Writers have noted that the "academic-sounding concept of white privilege" sometimes elicits defensiveness and misunderstanding among white people, in part due to how the concept of white privilege was rapidly brought into the mainstream spotlight through social media campaigns such as Black Lives Matter.[9]

This is not an academic source, and "The Year in Hashtags" is a journalistic roundup of the year's most popular hashtags. It is also a single source, not multiple as the summary suggests. It is dubious RS and is given undue prominence. I would suggest striking it. Any views? Keith Johnston (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Well at the least a re-write, and moving out of the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I cant see much justification for including it at all. Its not based on any empirical research and doesn't bring any new arguments to bear. The publication is RS but neither the author nor piece are prominent. I have removed it. Does anyone want to argue for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 10:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Many of the people on this talk page also have a history of defensiveness and misunderstanding of this topic, so it would be very nice if we could retain this information in some way. The source is weak, but the claim isn't controversial, and since it supposedly "doesn't bring any new arguments" then it may still be useful as a summary of a significant perspective. A quick search shows plenty of additional sources which touch on this topic, although deeper digging is needed. "Why do so many white people deny the existence of white privilege?" on The Undefeated is by Brando Simeo Starkey, who has also published on issues of race with Cambridge U. Press, suggesting topic expertise. There are many more out there. Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should go beyond merely explaining the theory and cover the popular reaction to the claims of white privilege theory. Isn't this done already in the White fragility section? Keith Johnston (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Two sources

An Empirical Assessment of Whiteness Theory: Hidden from How Many

"This paper employs data from a recent national survey to offer an empirical assessment of core theoretical tenets of whiteness studies. Using survey items developed explicitly for this purpose, we analyze three specific propositions relating to whites' awareness and conception of their own racial status: the invisibility of white identity ; the understanding (or lack thereof) of racial privileges; and adherence to individualistic, color-blind ideals. Consistent with whiteness theories, we find that white Americans are less aware of privilege than individuals from racial minority groups and consistently adopt color-blind, individualist ideologies. However, we also find that whites are both more connected to white identity and culture as well as more aware of the advantages of their race than many theoretical discussions suggest. We then combine these results to estimate that 15 percent of white Americans exhibit what we call " categorical whiteness, " a consistent and uniform adherence to the theoretical tenets that are the focus of this body of theory. We conclude by suggesting that these findings provide the basis for a more nuanced, contextualized understanding of whiteness as a social phenomenon.'[11] downloadable at [12].

“American” as a Proxy for “Whiteness”: Racial Color-Blindness in Everyday Life

"This article discusses racial color-blindness as it relates to a modern strategy used by both Whites and People of Color (POC) to mask their discussions of race and privilege. People who endorse racial color-blindness tend to believe that race should not matter and currently does not matter in understanding individuals’ lived experiences. Therefore, racially color-blind individuals use strategies to justify their racial privilege and racist beliefs and attitudes. One such strategy is to use the term “American” as a proxy for “White” in describing instances of White privilege as norms and to hide discussions of race more generally. Study 1 findings show that there are many different socially constructed definitions for the term American. Study 2 findings reveal differences in definitions for American depending on an individual’s race and generational status."[13] Doug Weller talk 17:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The second paper is rather fringe - it only has 13 citations. What's worse, it relies on rather irrelevant samples for its "studies" -i.e.: "Study 1 –Social Construction of “American”. Participants discussed ways of defining American concepts in 1 of 15 focus groups. Each focus group included three to five participants."Thematic analyses revealed many different definitions and socially constructed uses of the term American. They varied from being very fact-based,to include those born in the United States and those who are U.S. citizens to more socially constructed uses that included only Blacks and Whites or Whites only. Even more varied was the use of American to mean all those who are from a racial/ethnic group different from the participant. For example, a Filipino American may perceive all those who are not Filipino to be American" --ColumbiaXY (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sociological concept

This is a sociological concept and is academic theory. The article mainly focuses on academics such as Mcintosh and how the theory has been picked up by some in the mainstream media. Not making reference to that in the lede is misleading. if it is not a sociological concept or an academic theory, then what is it? what do you call this? what is White Privilege if it is not an academic concept or a sociological concept? Sparkle1 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. Adding empty filler words accomplishes nothing. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Except that they are not empty and they are not filler words. They are a standard qualification for the concept, in sociology, and an important distinction for a concept that is and has been largely debated by scholars. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it's a phenomenon described by a sociological concept. Attempting to make the article suggest it's simply an abstract, a consequence free thought puzzle, is a violation of WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That’s an arse about face description. It treats white privilege as a discovery and a fact. Which it is not. White privilege is not a phenomenon, it is a description given to a theory advanced by Macintosh in her 1989 paper. To claim it is not a sociological concept or to omit that, is a violation of WP:NPOV. Not the other way round. To claim at as more than a theory it needs to be provable and factual with limited to no mainstream alternatives. The round earth theory is an example of a wholly provable and factual academic theory. White privilege is most certainly not the same as that. The article is a largely academic leaning article with aspects of the mid 2010’s entrance into a less academic audience. Claiming it is not a sociological concept is the same way some individuals treat the bible. Some treat it as fact others treat it as fiction. Wikipedia reflects it as a book of religion. It doesn’t reflect it as ‘’a work of fiction’’ or ‘’the true telling of the foundation of the creation of the world’’. It reflects it neutrally by calling it what it is. The same must be applied here or it is inaccurate. White privilege began in academic theory circles and then moved outside of those circles. Not the other way round. Trying to portray white privilege as anything other is not calling it what it really is. Sparkle1 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• The article does not require filler words such as "sociological concept" and so on. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

These are not filler words as has been pointed out by @ColumbiaXY:. They are a standard qualification for an academic theory or concept. Not including them is denying what this is and adding a POV that this is somehow a great and revelatory discovery of facts. I feel in this discussion I am encountering evangelists who refuse to accept this is a theory and believe this is cold hard fact. This is just an academic theory nothing more. Simply re-claiming calling something what it actually is as "filler" is not discussing. It is simply intransigence, with no substance behind it. Sparkle1 (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Gravity is just a theory.[14] The idea that white privilege is just a theory with no substance - how can you say it's got no reality to it? Maybe your life experience is very different from mine. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

That is wholly missing the point and is a false equivalency. Where is the proof to back up this concept as more than just a theory? This is not a phenomenon as the evangelists keep on claiming. A phenomenon is an observable fact or event. White privilege is an interpretation of facts and events. it is not directly observable ergo not a phenomenon. Something "invisible" is literally not visible. White privilege is also not physically measurable and therefore not observable. The claims of White privilege being anything other than sociological concept lack proof and confirmation.

The arguments being presented here to stop calling something what it is are weak and soporific. They are recycled over and over, just from different users. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It's easy to find people who think it can be measured. Just do a search on measuring white privilege. And [15]. Resorting to nsme-calling doesn't impress. Doug Weller talk 21:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, it's like you're not listening for some reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Referring to individuals who are from academia reinforces the point that this is an academic concept. The above source is an academic reference and shows this is simply an academic concept. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You keep using the word "academic" as if it means "not real," which is not an attitude that's compatible with a site that just summarizes academic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Socioeconomic status, mental illness, and addiction would all be examples of academic concepts in social sciences as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If rs says its a theory its a theory, if it doesnt it doesn't. The rest is just the personal view of editors, which is not significant to our purpose in editing. Does rs say its a theory or not? If so which rs? Keith Johnston (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

here Phyllis May-Machunda, Ph.D. Professor, American Multicultural Studies, describes White privilege as a 'a theoretical framework for viewing the dynamics and structure of oppression' https://nationalseedproject.org/Key-SEED-Texts/peggy-mcintosh-s-white-privilege-papers here White privilege is described as both a 'theory' and a 'concept' https://din.today/the-theory-of-white-privilege-why-racism-is-not-a-privilege/ and here White privilege is described as a 'paradigm' https://areomagazine.com/2019/01/07/the-progressive-case-against-white-privilege/ These are good places to start a discussion around rs claims that white privilege is indeed a 'theory' Does anyone wish to support or dispute this rs or can provide rs demonstrating its not a theory? Keith Johnston (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It's like I mentioned way back when, white privilege is a phenomenon. There are sociological theories which describe the phenomenon and attempt to ascertain its causes. But this article treats the phenomenon using the academic research about it. It'd be disingenuous to present the phenomenon as if it sprang wholly formed out of the heads of academics like it was Economics or something. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have rs to support this view? I dont believe the opinions of editors, unsupported by rs, will take the discussions forward productively especially when there is rs 'on the table'. Keith Johnston (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller do you have rs to justify reverting my edits, which were supported by rs? Keith Johnston (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Does this mean you haven't searched for any yourself? Just search Google Scholar and you'll find them. It's a real thing with statistics.[16]. I'm not saying it isn't described as a concept or a theory, of course it is. I'm going offline shortly. Doug Weller talk 21:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, so in summary you have no RS and you agree its a concept? In this case I dont understand why you reverted by edits, especially as you make no attempt to justify this by reference to actual rs. For the benefit of other editors the edit was to the opening: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a sociological concept describing the societal privilege..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 18:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:IDHT. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. @Keith Johnston: if that's the way you interpret what I said, I don't see how I can take you seriously. Since there are sources for concept, theory, phenomenon, etc it's odd that you can only find those that support your view. Hell, I even provided a source and you claim I have no RS. Bottom line, you don't have consensus. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup. There's no shortage of sources to say that Natural selection is a theory, but it's also an actual thing. This effort to crowbar "theory" into the lead is getting tedious. William Avery (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

In determining consensus the quality of an argument and its supporting sources are more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. Here are more reliable sources discussing "white privilege theory" and white privilege in the context of "theories of race relations". https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=soc_fac The authors are Professor Hyeyoung Woo, Department of Sociology, Portland State University. Professor Arthur Sakamoto, Department of Sociology, University of Texas, and Professor Isao Takei, Department of International Relations, Nihon University. Keith Johnston (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

And here is Shannon Sullivan, Professor of Philosophy and Health Psychology at University of North Carolina, discussing "the concept of white privilege" https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190236953.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190236953-e-8 Keith Johnston (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

A) That's not what consensus means here.

B) Your cherry picking of sources to try and push "it's only a theory!" has been noted, and we're not persuaded by it. I don't know why you think repeating the behavior will suddenly work. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thats your view, here is the view of Khiara M. Bridges, Professor of Law and Professor of Anthropology, Boston University, discussing the "concept of white privilege". http://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/Bridges_Book.pdf Keith Johnston (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it's tendentious behavior to just keep throwing out any link that has the word "concept" or "theory" in it in an attempt to bludgeon us into letting you change the meaning of the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks finding reliable sources to support argumentation is vital to meeting Wikipedia's editing standards. If you have reliable sources to refute Khiara M. Bridges, Professor of Law and Professor of Anthropology, et al I would love to see them. Otherwise making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on the tendentious editing page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly. Meanwhile here is Professor Emeritus Wilburn Hayden, Jr. examining "the concept of white privilege" https://www.jstor.org/stable/41446518?seq=1 Keith Johnston (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't have to refute anything because you've not made an assertion beyond "they used this word!" Your entire schtick is to do that, search for any instance of the words "theory" or "concept" in a document and proclaim that means you're right. That's not evidence, it's just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. You're cherry-picking and bludgeoning the talk page, so I don't see any value in engaging further with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

So it seems to me at least enough sources have been provided above to at least consider a wording change. Arkon (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

A shit ton of sources are provided... but it's the equivalent of going to Peer presure and saying "This is a sociological concept and is academic theory." Yes, it's those things and an actual observed phenomenon. These sources are being thrown out to attempt to downplay its reality, and turn it into "just a theory" that people can dismiss. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It is true group differences are an actual observed phenomenon. But that is not what we are debating. The question is whether white privilege is the only or best way to explain - or conceptualise - those differences.

The reliable sources consistently demonstrate that a majority on the liberal-left believe that white privilege is the best way to explain the phenomenon of differences in group outcomes. This is supported by a huge number of studies from University professors, especially subject matter experts who teach white privilege and critical race theory. These studies make excellent reliable sources. A minority view amongst liberal-left sociologists is that, as white privilege does not explain the relative success of Asian-Americans, it is not such a useful concept.

Equally, conservatives disagree with the contention that white privilege explains the relative success of racial groups. These conservative criticisms tend to be expressed by economists and cultural commentators. Judged against the ‘subject matter experts’ on the liberal-left it is possible, because Wikipedia assumes the academy is neutral, to sideline or dismiss the conservative critique. Since conservatives tend not to be sociology professors and do not make careers out of studying concepts they do not believe in, the temptation to dismiss their views has been indulged. It is also possible that conservatives are less interested in editing wikipedia pages on concepts they do not believe are useful, leading to discussions where the weight of numbers, if not the weight of argument, is liberal-left.

Therefore by presenting white privilege as THE explanation for the phenomenon of group outcome difference- and not AN explanation - this wikipedia page is not neutral because it presents the majority liberal-left view as fact and dismisses both the liberal-left critique and the conservative critique. The inclusion of the word ‘concept’ in the lede becomes essential to redress this balance. This is a fair and balanced word to use since it does not dismiss white privilege but it correctly contextualises it as one way -but crucially not the only way - of explaining differences in group outcomes. To omit this is an ongoing violation of WP:NPOV. Keith Johnston (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Aaaaand there it is. "Wikipedia is biased against conservatives!" isn't a compelling argument. If you think this is what's happening, take it up with the admins. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticism Subsection

As the topic of this article is undoubtedly controversial, in the interest of full transparency I believe that a "criticism" subsection section should be added to the article in order to describe countervailing viewpoints that exist. To not do so is to render the article misleading, as it presents the topic of the article as criticism-free when the opposite is true. Whether the criticisms are warranted or whether the individuals who are making the criticisms are qualified to weigh in on the topic is another question entirely, and should be addressed in a separate section such as "responses to criticisms" or by other means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenwiliams (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A request for comment was held in 2017, and consensus was against a "critique section". This can be reviewed here: Talk:White privilege/Archive 11#RfC should this article contain a "Critique_section". This was far from the only time this has come up. This talk page has 14 pages of archives (!), and I'm guessing most or all of those pages have at least one entry mentioning this. Per WP:CSECTION, there are many reasons Wikipedia articles should avoid such section, even if some editors think the concept is controversial for some reason. Framing this as criticism vs. response would not solve these issues, and would make the situation worse, as it would introduce false balance. Grayfell (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell -- To fail to include a criticism section renders the article more misleading than it would be with such a section included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenwiliams (talk • contribs) 01:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Allenwiliams, I agree with you that this article is extremely biased. In my opinion, neutrality on this subject is unattainable at this time, so I won't waste time editing here. Good luck to you.Jacona (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The reason the subject of a critique section keeps coming up is because the article is so often considered biased. Last time this came up I was told it was not necessary because there was a "contrasting concepts" section - but even this has now been deleted. Keith Johnston (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems ridiculous to me there is no Criticism section but there is a "response to criticism" section (e.g. white fragility). Wikipedia should be an unbiased source, not propaganda for only one side of the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.170.63 (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems a valid question.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally frowned upon by Wikipedia and should be avoided where possible in preference to integrating criticism into other relevant sections. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yet we have A "response to criticism" section, that seems to me little different.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not opposed to restructuring the article such that these responses remain in other relevant sections. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Problem is we still would have reactions to statements we do not give.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Do we though? Or do we have an asymmetrical situation where legitimate academics have felt pressured to respond to WP:FRINGE critics? In that case it'd be fully possible to have due and notable responses to critics but not to include the "critics" themselves. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

We still need to know what they are responding to "They are wrong you know, ohh yes they are" is not much of a refutation of someone point and neither is "Its just white folks whining".Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the most constructive thing to do is to present the critique you would like to see included, backed by rs and then we can debate it. Otherwise this discussion is rather abstract. Keith Johnston (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I just said I think the question is fair, and then explained why.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you.Keith Johnston (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that that misunderstands what that section is. It isn't "a response to criticisms of the concept of White Privilege", it's part of the applications in critical theory that uses the concept to explain resistance to discussion of racial issues more broadly (even where the term isn't used), as well as backlashes against racial equality. I think the solution is just to remove the section header, since it's separating out parts that aren't really separate from the list of applications. --Aquillion (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: What do you mean by "legitimate academics" and "WP:FRINGE critics"? I think this sets up a dichotomy between academics in a few areas of social studies, who are being set up as the arbiters of truth, and everyone else, including social commentators outside of academia, who are being declared wrong if they disagree with those academics. That would be an appropriate dichotomy to draw if we were talking about a scientific field, but we're not. We're talking about what is a strongly polemical term ("white privilege") used in areas of social studies that are themselves highly political. It's not appropriate to declare all criticisms or rejections of the views of academics in those fields WP:FRINGE. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The article as a whole is insufficiently neutral

A reasonable person would be more likely than not to believe, after reading this entry, that there is less criticism of white privilege than actually exists in reality. This is a problem. We now must think about how to remedy this problem. Until we can agree to a remedy - whether a banner of some kind or some other solution, many of which have been proposed previously - I believe a banner should be placed on this article. It is simply not the case that more cannot be done to improve the neutrality of this article. Hence, a discussion needs to be ongoing as to what these improvements should look like and how they should be implemented. But in the meantime, as previously mentioned, it is only reasonable that a banner of some kind be put at the top of the article to call readers' attention to this fact.Allenwiliams (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)— Allenwiliams (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The only reasonable solution is to include the critique that is backed up by rs. I would encourage you to make some suggestions and review the proposed critique suggested by other editors. Keith Johnston (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

We generally discourage banners until after a discussion of specific improvements has been completed. Please present RSes that you believe are being ignored. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Allenwiliams, feel free to suggest changes backed by reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (help!) 23:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@ guy -- Did you not read what I wrote previously? This cannot be allowed to turn into a situation where the onus is on those who disagree to provide sources rebutting the notion that white privilege is somehow a social fact (which it plainly is not), putting you, conveniently, in the position of dictating which sources are "legitimate" and which are not. The onus is on the proponent of the claim to put forward evidence establishing that the claim is, in fact, true. This is literally always the way it works. In absolutely no situation is the claim ever just assumed to be true and the burden shifts to those who disagree that its true to rebut it. -Allenwilliams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.192.20 (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The claim has been established in the article based on multiple reliable sources. And the article has been written to adhere to a neutral point of view by a consensus of experienced editors. So at this point, challenging the facts & neutrality of the article requires new sources to rebut the facts as stated. Therefore, your comments about "shifting the burden" are misplaced. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The article has been edited countless times in the recent year alone and the claims about its current neutral point of view should be re-evaluated especially in the light of overwhelming evidence pointing to the contrary (evidence submitted on this talk-page by several editors).--ColumbiaXY (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Your logical fallacy is: begging the question. Guy (help!) 15:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Response to NPOV/N discussion

@Keith Johnston, HandThatFeeds, William Avery, Doug Weller, François Robere, Grayfell, Michepman, Ian.thomson, ColumbiaXY, Eggishorn, Slatersteven, Sridc, EricR, EvergreenFir, Allenwiliams, JzG, Simonm223, and Jacona: There's a consensus of editors that white privilege is a fact and not a theory, and any viewpoint that denies the existence of white privilege is fringe. However, there is legitimate controversy among scholars, particularly in the area of education, about whether or not the framing of antiracism as renunciation of white privilege and the focus on white privilege in teacher training are the best approach. In response to concerns raised at WP:NPOV/N, especially a point raised by User:EricR concerning unclarity in the lede, I replaced an unclear paragraph in the lede with a summary of criticisms, and added a section on criticism. I give 5 sources, all by people who admire and respect the seminal work by Peggy McIntosh and all of whom acknowledge that white privilege is a phenomenon, but who have some criticisms. I pinged the participants in the NPOV/N discussion hoping that other editors will look at my edits and comment on the talk page. I think that the discussion belongs here rather than at NPOV/N. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, this has already been the subject of an WP:RFC: Talk:White privilege/Archive 11#RfC should this article contain a "Critique section". Your edit ignores prior consensus, so this will not work. I also do not agree that your summary of the "controversy" here on the talk page is an accurate reflection of the edits you have made. While this particular aspect may be a controversy in some senses of the term, by presenting this as a "Controversy" section, this is misrepresenting both the scope and greater significance of this controversy. I would strongly recommend rephrasing this to avoid the issues raised by WP:CSECTION, the previous RFC, and the dozens of other times this has been proposed and shot-down on the article's talk page. Pending that, perhaps a new RFC could be raised, but you will have to address WP:CSECTION either way, so you may as well get ahead of the curve and figure it out now. Grayfell (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, I think you're right. Adding factors such as class is only adding confusion, as the data shows pretty clearly that African-Americans in particular have substantially lower social mobility. "You're not disadvantaged because you're black, but because you're poor" ignores the fact that you're much more likely to be poor if you're black.

The point I always focus on is that white privilege doesn't mean that white people can't have shitty lives, it's just that their lives aren't shitty because of the colour of their skin. Guy (help!) 11:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Class is actually extremely relevant and should to be added as well. LeBron James and many other African-Americans in sports, showbiz, business or medicine enjoy benefits way above the homeless or the average Appalachian or Californian Hispanic. Let's not pretend these differences do not exist or are not relevant.--ColumbiaXY (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy: Yes, of course. I'm sure that the critics I cited would agree with that, too. What they would say (if I understand them correctly) is that if one wants to reach out to white people who lead shitty lives, in many cases it is not a good strategy to try to convince them to confess to having privileges because of being white. There are better ways to frame the issue of racism (such as when talking to future teachers, which is a focus of several of the critics) --- for example, one can talk about the divide-and-conquer strategy that destroys unions, gets Trump elected, undermines social welfare programs, etc. I'm not asking for editors to agree with the critics, but just to agree that their viewpoint should be explained in a clear way in the lede and main body of this article. NightHeron (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron, not sure that reaching out to people is our concern. Documenting the concept of white privilege, is. It's a bit like having an article on feminism that worries about reaching out to incels. Guy (help!) 16:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy: Not our concern, but definitely the concern of the 5 sources I cited --- as well as the concern of Peggy McIntosh and other originators of the 'white privilege' framing of anti-racism. Clearly the intent of McIntosh and her followers was to reach out to whites and get whites to turn away from racism. The article from the Harvard Educational Review discusses what they see as the need (in multicultural and antiracist education, especially for ed students) to reach out to students from poor white background. That's one of the two main reasons given in the article for having become somewhat disillusioned with white privilege pedagogy as a strategy. They're talking about open-minded but not well-informed (white) young people from rural America who want to be teachers. Not incel idiots. NightHeron (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy, one major criticism of the concept of "white privilege" is that it mislabels the absence of oppression "privilege." Another is that it ignores all sorts of differences within racial groups (as defined by skin-color). For example, immigrants from some African countries are actually much better off than the average American. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that that is necessarily a criticism in the sense you mean it, ie. some people mention this as a possible aspect to consider without intending it as a broad criticism of white privilege as a concept. More generally, that sort of thing is why having a WP:CSECTION is generally a terrible way to organize an article; actual scholarship rarely divides evenly into "people supporting this idea" and "people opposing this idea." If you have reliable sources for those aspects we can put them in a more appropriate section instead. (Not just opinion pieces, though? I don't feel dropping a bunch of duelling opinion pieces into an article like this helps much.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411, the absence of oppression is indeed a privilege. Ask any American other than a native-born cis white man. Guy (help!) 16:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: The argument that "privilege" is a fundamentally misleading term in this context is indeed a broad criticism of "white privilege." I don't see how else it could be interpreted. There are several prominent criticisms of white privilege theory, and they should be discussed clearly in this article.

Guy, that's your opinion, and the opinion advanced by academics inhabiting certain (highly political) areas of social studies, but it's not a universally held position. Your assertion that everyone other than native-born cis white men agree with that opinion is incorrect (and pretty insulting, actually). Just to illustrate this, the page used to include criticism of the term "white privilege" by Lewis Gordon (see [17]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy how about we ask LeBron James and a random, homeless native-born cis white man? Your turning this discussion into a display of your own ideological biases and stereotypes, and treat Wikipedia as if it were Reddit, when this should be about what RS say. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

ColumbiaXY, See earlier answers. White privilege doesn't mean that white people can't have shitty lives, or that black people can't become rich, it just means that white people don't have shitty lives because of their skin colour and black people can become rich despite their skin colour. If you look at demographic data the picture is absolutely clear: being black makes you more likely to be poor, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be jailed, less likely to do well in school, less likely to get to the top in any profession - and this holds even when you control for all other factors. Example: black and white teens use weed at the same rate but black teens are four times more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for it. Guy (help!) 09:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The appropriate place for this is the NPOV board where impartial editors can adjudicate. Keith Johnston (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Keith Johnston, this is also an appropriate venue. Guy (help!) 10:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You will confuse contributors to the discussion by having it in two places. The board exists for a reason. I note NightHeron (talk) You have failed to list many editors who take a more nuanced view or disagree with you. These include Sparkle1 (talk) Scorpions13256 (talk) Correctus2kX (talk) Byulwwe (talk) MagicatthemovieS (talk) Nikolaneberemed (talk) Thucydides411 (talk) Tornado chaser (talk) Hesperian Nguyen (talk) Cummin14 (talk) 64.125.109.37 Liberty axe1 (talk) Ϫ(talk) Telenarn (talk) ShimonChai (talk) Jobberone (talk) SRichardWeiss (talk) Keithramone33 (talk) Jacona (talk) Obsidi (talk) Keith Johnston (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Keith Johnston, the issue affects one article, so this is an appropriate venue. Noticeboard discussions get archived pretty aggressively so it's arguably a better venue, but it's certainly an appropriate one. It's also a bad look asserting your opinion as fact when dealing with people vastly more experienced on Wikipedia than you are. Guy (help!) 13:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I pinged all 18 editors who participated in the NPOV/N discussion, without regard to what viewpoints they expressed. I admittedly did not research the history of debates over this article and did not know about the RfC that occurred before I was a Wikipedia editor. Is that a requirement before editing? If so, that's a great way to discourage newcomers and others. The article in its present form, after all my edits were reverted, has obvious problems that others have noted. The lede contains a poorly written paragraph (the one I replaced) trying to summarize some criticisms. But there's very little mention of criticism in the main body. As my edits showed, there's a substantial body of legitimate criticism of the 'white privilege' framing (not of the existence of white privilege), especially in education. To ignore this, or to give a garbled paragraph about it, violates WP:NPOV, which is a core policy. WP:CSECTION is not a policy at all, but an essay, and many editors clearly disagree with parts of that essay. Wikipedia includes a huge number of criticism sections and even entire criticism articles, including Criticism of Mother Teresa. The essay states that it's better to work criticism into appropriate places in an article, rather than gathering it together into a separate section. If anyone sees a way to do that in white privilege, then fine. But the only way I could see to include the critical commentary without disrupting the coherence of the article was in a separate section.

I initially thought the article complied with NPOV, but then a comment by User:EricR made me think more carefully about the article, especially the main body, which, according to MOS:LEAD, should explain what's in the lede, and I changed my mind. Is there a consensus of editors that the article in its present form is fine, and adequately accounts for legitimate mainstream criticism? I don't see the evidence for that. NightHeron (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that dividing sources into "critical" and "uncritical" is already a mistake, and I would strenuously disagree with your assertion that most of the sources you added were "legitimate mainstream criticism." They discussed the topic and how to apply it; they were not, broadly, criticism. That said, if you really think that there's a substantial body of legitimate criticism of the 'white privilege' framing (not of the existence of white privilege), especially in education according to your personal gut instincts on what qualifies as "criticism", the obvious thing to do is to add the sources you read as critical of certain specific approaches in education to the education section, ideally in a paragraph devoted to the approaches they're discussing. (If we don't even mention the approaches or concepts they're discussing - ie. there's no clear place to put them because the aspect they discuss isn't in the article - then they're possibly not WP:DUE; intentionally hunting for sources you read as adopting a critical tone and adding them regardless of whether the aspect they're critiquing is in the article risks a degree of WP:FALSEBALANCE.) But my reading is that your edits generally pushed to label certain scholars as 'critical' (ie. you added a 'criticism' section and rewrote the lead paragraph to add Several scholars have criticized...; to me, that risks both WP:SYNTH and a WP:POV framing. If you want to cast a scholar as broadly critical you need to actually cite a source describing them that way rather than just your own personal gut feeling on how to categorize them. Also, I feel it's WP:SYNTH to combine these individual lines of commentary (many of which are aimed at refining or improving the concept) into a paragraph or section of "look at how many people have criticized this." To answer your original question, though - yes, the article, as it stands (prior to your edit) gives a broadly-accurate summary of mainstream scholarship on the topic. It is neutral and accurate, and your changes introduced WP:POV issues by crowbarring a non-neutrally critical WP:TONE into the article voice by synthizing together a bunch of sources that didn't individually support the tone or thesis of the section. If you want to argue that there is broad criticism of the concept in academia beyond what is currently in the article (something I don't think you've any evidence for), you will need comparable broad, mainstream academic sources covering and describing this criticism as a whole - not a few scattered, disconnected sources focused on refining or questioning specific narrow applications braided into some sort of WP:POV amalgam. --Aquillion (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion By no means was it my idea to lump together the 5 sources I used and call them criticism. If you look at the most recent of the 5 sources (the one from the Harvard Educational Review), you'll see that its introduction identifies itself as criticism and briefly surveys earlier critical articles, specifically discussing the other 4 sources I cite. You write If you want to cast a scholar as broadly critical you need to actually cite a source describing them that way rather than just your own personal gut feeling on how to categorize them. The 5th source I cite is thus a source that does precisely what you call for.

White privilege pedagogy is used in teacher education, in gender studies and ethnic studies departments, in diversity training programs, etc. The original Peggy McIntosh article from 1988 has been hugely influential as pedagogy, reprinted many times (usually in a shortened form), and serving as a basis for many educational efforts aimed at combatting racism. If this isn't clear from the article, we should add more sources that make it clear. The critics I cite are not opponents of these efforts, but supporters of and participants in them. They don't question the existence of white privilege as a component of racism, but rather question whether the 'white privilege' framing is really the best approach in educational efforts. NightHeron (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion: I agree that it's important to avoid POV-pushing in the way we cite sources. Please look at the way the Lawrence Blum article is used in the body of this article. It is cited many times, though this might not be apparent at first, because it is listed in 4 different places in the references (reference numbers 11, 13, 62, and 63). In the main body of the article (White privilege#Applications in critical theory) the source is presented as an elaboration on the notion of 'white privilege', whereas in fact it is a critique. The title is White Privilege: A Mild Critique, and here is the abstract: White privilege analysis has been influential in philosophy of education. I offer some mild criticisms of this largely salutary direction — its inadequate exploration of its own normative foundations, and failure to distinguish between `spared injustice', `unjust enrichment' and `non-injustice-related' privileges; its inadequate exploration of the actual structures of racial disparity in different domains (health, education, wealth); its tendency to deny or downplay differences in the historical and current experiences of the major racial groups; its failure to recognize important ethnic differences within racial groups; and its overly narrow implied political project that omits many ways that White people can contribute meaningfully to the cause of racial justice. The way this source is currently used in the article is a clear example of what you're concerned about, namely, distortion of the author's viewpoint to make it appear to agree with an editor's POV. NightHeron (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks NightHeron (talk) I appreciate you are acting in good faith. I would be happy to work with you try to weave in mainstream critique but given the ongoing noticeboard I still think its better to discuss there. I would recommend duplicating your comments in that forum. Keith Johnston (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Keith Johnston: I'm happy to work with you, and also with the other 17 editors I pinged, to try to achieve consensus. I don't think this has to go to another forum, since many editors are involved in or following the discussion here. When in doubt, the article talk page is the best place to go, rather than adding to the backlog of unresolved issues on NPOV/N. To achieve consensus, we should be very careful about sources, using high-quality mainstream ones. They can be conservative as well as liberal, as User:Thucydides411 suggests (below), but, frankly, high-quality conservative sources might be hard to find, since (at least in the US) so many conservatives have gotten into supporting fringe views. Denying the existence of white privilege in the face of factual examples is fringe, as is claiming that "racism in reverse" is the real problem. I think we'll find that the best critical sources are written by people who acknowledge that white privilege exists as a consequence of racism but believe that using that term as the main way to frame the problem of racism is a mistake. NightHeron (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Rejecting the existence of white privilege is not fringe. When you say "in the face of factual examples", you should recognize that the factual examples you're talking about are facts that are used to support the idea of white privilege. The facts (so long as they really are factual statements about census figures, etc.) are not what is at question, and the facts themselves are not what constitute the theory of white privilege. The interpretation of those facts as establishing a privilege based on whiteness is what constitutes the theory of white privilege.

There are several reasonable ways that people who acknowledge the facts argue against the theory of white privilege. One is to argue that absence of certain types of discrimination is not a "privilege" - that is, that the idea of white privilege fundamentally mixes up rights and privileges. This is an argument put forward by Lewis Gordon. Another argument (also made by Lewis Gordon) against the theory of white privilege is that most whites do not have access to the actual privileges that are often claimed to make up white privilege (even though white people might on average fare better in certain ways than some other groups, there is huge variation). An argument against the theory of white privilege that I have read in conservative publications is that the theory relies too heavily on a comparison of white Americans and African Americans, ignoring the numerous minority groups (including Indian Americans, Chinese Americans, Nigerian Americans, Ghanaian Americans, and many others) that fare significantly better (on average) than white Americans in many broad measures (income, education and health). These conservative critics will agree that there are comparisons between, say, average income of white Americans and African Americans that indicate that white Americans are better off, on average, but the critics say that the fact that the exact same measures show many minority groups doing better than white Americans undermines the idea of "white privilege." Then there are, of course, Marxist arguments against the theory, centering on the idea that race is actually being used as a fuzzy stand-in for class (fuzzy because there are rich African Americans and poor whites). Eric Arnesen additionally argues that the term "white privilege" is used by so many different writers to mean so many mutually contradictory things that it is an ill-defined moving target. Arnesen compares white privilege theory to Freudian psychoanalysis (which I don't think Wikipedia is about to declare to be absolutely true).

These are all reasonable, non-fringe criticisms of the existence of white privilege. There are prominent representatives of these various criticisms. This old version of the page goes through several of these arguments, with sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411 Most of what you say is very reasonable. I certainly did not say that all examples of white privilege are necessarily valid or aren't open to question. Nor is it true that an example has to be statistical. The many cases of specific situations where there is indisputably privilege for being white are enough to justify the statement that white privilege exists as a phenomenon (but not enough to necessarily support a sweeping theory of the ubiquity of white privilege or the value of white privilege as a way of framing the issue of racism). For example, a manager hires a white guy who reminds him of his son, passing over a more qualified black guy whose appearance reminded him of some criminal he saw in a movie. Or in the NFL a head football coach who's white replaces a black coach who was fired after a 10-6 season and gets kept for years despite his team's record being worse than 10-6. Students give a white professor high evaluations despite his being tough, but give a black professor low evaluations if he/she is tough. Or if police are devoting most of their effort to stop-and-frisk of people of color, then a white person who's speeding on the highway has less chance of being pulled over. I'm sure people who've thought about this much more than I have could give you many more examples. NightHeron (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Would you consider the view that those specific examples (which could be matched by countless other examples where being a member of any particular group is an advantage or a disadvantage) do not establish the existence of a generalized "white privilege" as fringe? I acknowledge that there are commentators who argue as you do above, but it's not Wikipedia's place to declare those commentators correct, and the commentators who disagree with them incorrect. This is not climate science, and there is not a definitive interpretation that Wikipedia can declare to be correct. There are Critical Race Theorists, conservatives, Marxists, and commentators from many different strains of thought that have mutually contradictory views on whether white privilege exists. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:: The common meaning of the word privilege is a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich. This is the first definition in dictionary.com. Suppose that a manager has a white guy and several people of color apply for a sales job. He says to himself, "The white guy doesn't seem to be as good as the others. But many of my customers are uneasy around people of color, and I can't afford to lose their business. So I'd better hire the white guy." This is not at all an unlikely scenario, at least not in many parts of the US. The white guy getting the job is an indisputable beneficiary of white privilege, and it would be fringe to deny that. On the other hand, it would be reasonable (though controversial) to say, for example, that from a statistical standpoint this is not an important form of racism, because only a small percent of all whites have ever received a job because more qualified people of color were passed over. Whether or not the notion of white privilege should be extended to cover cases where the common meaning of privilege doesn't apply (such as simply not being discriminated against) and whether or not the terminology white privilege is a good way to frame racism in general, and whether focusing on white privilege is a good strategy or a distraction in efforts to reduce racism --- all of this is the subject of mainstream debate. But denialism of the existence of white privilege amounts to denying facts. NightHeron (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: "The white guy getting the job is an indisputable beneficiary of white privilege, and it would be fringe to deny that" - no, it's not fringe, because there are many commentators who do deny that. The argument against that view is pretty simple: that's not a privilege that most white people enjoy. The fact that some white people (and people of very race) get jobs because they know someone is not necessarily reflective of a general privilege that white people benefit from. The definition of "privilege" that you quoted actually gets right to the point: a privilege is something reserved for the few, not something that is broadly viewed as a universal right (like non-discrimination). That's one of the central criticisms of white privilege theory, voiced by many critics.

I'm really not here to argue who is right or wrong in this debate, though. My views are irrelevant here. What is important is that there is very significant criticism of the concept of white privilege, and it's not correct to call it all fringe. I don't think we should be declaring that commentators from a few subfields of academia are correct, while commentators from other subfields are incorrect and social commentators outside academia writing for well known publications (whose views are just as weighty as someone with a position in academia) don't matter. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411, how many of those denying it are white libertarians? Guy (help!) 09:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy, of the dozen or so critics whose views were noted in an earlier version of the article, I think zero are white Libertarians. That isn't to say that the views of white Libertarians should be discounted or excluded from this article. Wikipedia doesn't have any policy of excluding the views of either white people or Libertarians. I would be against instituting any racist policies of that sort. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:: The definition says a benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most, where presumably most means most of the relevant group of people, such as applicants for a job. So my example clearly fits. The benefit in fact was a generalized white privilege, because most any white applicant could have been substituted for the not-so-well-qualified white guy and still would have gotten the job. Here's another example, a true story told me by an acquaintance. She's a white British citizen having an extended stay in the US, and she had overstayed her visa. Once she was on a bus in southern California that was stopped by Immigration. All the other passengers were Latino, all were checked carefully, and all had their proper papers. She was skipped, much to her relief --- and also amusement, since she was the only "illegal alien" on the bus. She was granted that privilege because she was white, and presumably another white person would have been granted the same privilege. On the other hand, most of the people she encountered traveling by bus in southern California would not have been given this privilege. Using the common meanings of the words white and privilege, both of my examples can indisputably be called cases of white privilege.

I agree with you that, rather than discussing content issues, we need to find a way to improve the article. For that we need consensus, which in this case might not be easy to achieve. But I don't think it would be so difficult to come to an agreement if editors agree to forego positions at the extremes, that is, if we all could compromise by agreeing that (1) this article needs to give due coverage to responsible critics of theories and approaches that focus around the term white privilege, and (2) the existence of white privilege as a phenomenon is not in contention. NightHeron (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: I agree with your point #1, but strongly disagree with your point #2. There are many prominent social commentators who reject the notion of white privilege (in the US, at least). These critics range from conservatives to Marxists. Their views should also be presented. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:: Other editors agree with (2) and disagree with (1). It doesn't look like either side is likely to convince the other to change their minds, so I'm suggesting compromise as the only way to reach consensus. If everyone insists on having their way, then the article won't be improved, any attempt to insert criticism will be reverted as "not reflecting consensus", and this could devolve into edit-warring. Note, by the way, that the male privilege article also has very little criticism --- just a sentence mentioning that men's rights advocacy groups and anti-feminist men deny it. As I understand the Marxist position, they believe that talk about either white privilege or male privilege is divisive in the working class and gets in the way of class struggle, which is not quite the same thing as saying that neither phenomenon exists. Or do you know a reference where Marxists say that white/male privilege doesn't exist? NightHeron (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Keith Johnston, bear in mind that we cover criticism according to its prominence. That's why we state as fact that climate change is real. Guy (help!) 18:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not the case currently. One source in the lede is an article entitled "The Year in Hashtags: 2014". At the same time conservative or liberal critique is sidelined or banished. You may not like or agree with Denis Prager but he is one of the most prominent conservatives in the world. You may not like Toby Young but he is a prominent British conservative - see https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2019/no-need-to-plead-guilty/ - There is an unacceptable double-standard at play here. Keith Johnston (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy, the comparison to climate change is precisely the problem here. Critical Race Theory is not science. It is an interpretive framework and a political program. The term "white privilege" is a highly polemical term, and whether or not you think it's an accurate, appropriate or useful term depends very much on your political outlook. Does the fact that Nigerian and Ghanaian Americans, on average, earn far more than white Americans undermine the idea of white privilege? Is the real division one of class rather than race? It depends very much on whom you ask. Marxist academics, conservatives, and Critical Race Theorists will give different answers to each question. Who are we to declare that only the Critical Race Theorists are correct? On the contrary, climate change is a reality - something that you can objectively measure using the scientific method. We should not be presenting white privilege theory as if it were on the same footing with climate change. Concretely, that means that the various criticisms of the concept - from both left-wing and right-wing commentators, should be discussed in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I see we've descended to the "social sciences aren't real science!" part of the argument. Such a stance does not even bear consideration. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting that Critical Race Theory is a science, and that the theses put forward by people in that field have the same certainty as scientific laws in areas such as physics, chemistry and biology? That's just not credible, in my opinion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Observing the behavior of populations is science, definitely on par with physics, biology and chemistry. This page describes a documented phenomenon. That you dismiss it speaks more to yourself than anything else, and I have no further comment on your opinions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not a reasonable view at all, and the way you're discussing here is not reasonable. There is an important distinction between scientific fields like physics, chemistry and biology and fields like Critical Race Theory or Freudian psychoanalysis. The fact that you so emphatically proclaim them to be on the same level is just strange to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Just because you do not understand HandThatFeeds does not invalidate his point. "Science" has to do with method, not subject matter. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixing ping error @HandThatFeeds: above. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I never said that I don't understand what HandThatFeeds is saying. I agree that science (no scare quotes) has to do with method, and Critical Race Theory (and related areas of academia that we're talking about here) do not follow the scientific method. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

One more thing, @SPECIFICO: Please stop stalking me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If you have sources for Critical Race Theory (and related areas of academia that we're talking about here) do not follow the scientific method, I suggest you present them and they may help you to elucidate any concerns you have about the article or any content you feel should be included. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

As I've asked you kindly several times before, stop following me to random articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

fields like Critical Race Theory or Freudian psychoanalysis I see the problem now. You equate modern peer-reviewed social sciences with Victorian-era early psychoanalysis, and paint them as equally invalid. That's a serious category error and colors your entire understanding of the matter. That's why you don't see my stance as reasonable: you're equating all social sciences with century-old therapy techniques. It's not equivalent. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the problem is actually much simpler than that. It is patently absurd to claim that interpretive frameworks in the social sciences have the same level of solidity as theories in the hard sciences. If you believe that they do, then you're going to have to decide which of the many mutually contradictory "truths" that the different social science theories develop is actually true. Which, exactly, of the following philosophies should Wikipedia declare to be true? Critical Theory, Post-Structuralism, Marxism, Postmodernism? They all have their journals full of peer-reviewed papers. But they also contradict one another on very basic points, and we obviously can't proclaim all of them to be true without entering into contradiction. A central problem with this article, in particular, is that it takes a highly polemical concept from one of these fields, which is very controversial beyond the circle of practitioners of that field, and treats it as if it were the correct interpretation of society, largely sweeping the criticisms under the rug. That's just not appropriate for Wikipedia to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This elaborate description of social sciences isn't "much simpler". It's also not anything new, but either way it seems needlessly complex. It is holding social science to a higher, more arbitrary standard than physical sciences. The purpose of this proposal was, ostensibly, to highlight a specific issue some academics have with this term's use in pedagogy. Extrapolating from that subtle point to decry all social sciences as lacking rigor tips the hand that this is just an excuse to complain about something else entirely. It also doesn't match reliable sources (or my personal experience). A term, or a larger framework, is often used to understand a more complex situation. You can try and use quantum mechanics to explain racism, if you want to, but it's not going to get you very far, is it? Instead, people who study these fields develop different approaches. Some of these are more complicated, and more contentious, then others. This doesn't invalidate them, and even when people dislike the conclusions, that doesn't make them somehow less real or less legitimate than physical sciences. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact that there are multiple mutually contradictory interpretative frameworks does indeed make them less solid than the sciences. We're not talking about scientific fields, and it's frankly ridiculous to say that disagreeing with Critical Race Theory's view of society is like denying climate change. It's pretty scary that there are several editors here trying to elevate CRT to the same level as climate science. Wikipedia cannot declare one or another sociological theory to be the truth. It should describe the theory and the relevant criticisms. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree - Thucydides411 (talk) is correct here. Putting Critical Race Theory or other political discipline on equal footing with the psychical sciences is like putting the claims in OpEd articles in BuzzFeed on equal footing with those in Nature magazine. This article is clearly biased in favor of political claims coming from the field of Critical Race Theory - a field which some would want us believe should be given weight over any other academic discipline, since its theories and definitions are, for unclear reasons, as legitimate as physical sciences.--ColumbiaXY (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411 (talk) is quite correct. We now need to move to specific proposals to include the critical arguments. Keith Johnston (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Keith Johnston: That requires that we first reach consensus, which is not likely to occur through heated debates about content issues such as science vs social science. In an exchange with Thucydides411 above, I've suggested that if both sides compromise, we can proceed to specific edits, and I've proposed as a possible compromise that we all agree that (1) this article needs to give due coverage to responsible critics of theories and approaches that focus around the term white privilege, and (2) the existence of white privilege as a phenomenon is not in contention. To put it another way, we would agree to add the viewpoints of moderate critics, but not the more extreme ones (such as conservative pundits and bloggers). NightHeron (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron (talk) I sympathise, but consensus on what changes, exactly? I believe its better to propose precise changes backed by rs than have a general debate about white privilege which is unlikely to lead to concrete suggestions.Keith Johnston (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Keith Johnston: I added a new section on white privilege pedagogy that I hope satisfies the editors who objected to and reverted my earlier edit. I did not change the lede, and I put my sources in a section on pedagogy rather than a section labeled 'criticisms'. Hopefully it won't get reverted. Please read the whole article in its present form. I think you'll find that there's actually quite a bit of criticism of various aspects of how white privilege is used to frame the issue of racism. On the other hand, many editors rightfully insist that white privilege is a phenomenon that indisputably exists, and any claim to the contrary is fringe. My own feeling is that the article in its present form now does a pretty good job of complying with both WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. NightHeron (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Keith Johnston, status quo ante works for me. We already cover critical arguments in the article. The fact that the far right don't like the fact of white privilege really isn't our problem to fix. Guy (help!) 12:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy I don't see how it's possible to say that in its present form the article gives due coverage to criticism. But I agree with you that we should not include criticisms from the far right, per WP:FRINGE. NightHeron (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with JzG here. There are areas of "Physics" that are inconsistent with areas of "Chemistry" among the most widely recognized "sciences". It is to be expected that a relatively new area of inquiry -- currently labeled (among others) "White Privilege" -- will be less well-organized and canonized than long-established sciences. That does not invalidate it. Among the established social and behavioral sciences -- economics, psychology, and others -- we see an intermediate stage of development, wherein there are broad areas of common frameworks but still many apparent contradictions and unexplained phenomena. Attacks on the concepts relating to White Privilege appear to stem from denial or opposition to its nascent, sometimes imperfectly-stated, conclusions. SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need to debate whether or not social science theories can have the same validity as theories in the natural sciences. White privilege is first of all a set of empirical facts that are indisputable. Secondly, the term refers to an approach to discussing racism and teaching students about racism that is controversial, even among people who are deeply committed to combatting racism. The article I cited from the Harvard Educational Review (in my edit that was reverted) is an example of responsible mainstream criticism. NightHeron (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: White privilege is not a set of empirical facts. It's a theory of the structure of society that comes from Critical Race Theory (CRT). There are certain statistical discrepancies between whites and African Americans in the US that Critical Race Theorists argue constitute a form of privilege, but this interpretation is very contentious, not least because: 1. The idea that oppression of one group equals a privilege for another is an invention of CRT that is widely disputed, 2. There is a lot of argument about whether the primary divide is race- or class-based, since there are also many privileged African Americans and many poor whites, 3. There is the argument that the success (on average) of many non-white minority groups (such as Nigerians or Indians) in the US indicates that white skin does not confer a privilege. White privilege theory is not just the acknowledgement of certain empirical facts about the distribution of wealth. It's an interpretation based on those facts (and according to critics, it ignores many facts that contradict the interpretation). -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

All three of your points are debates within the framework of the theory. They do not invalidate its status as an observed phenomenon or as a field of science. So your argument doesn't actually alter anything. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You're confusing the notion of observed phenomenon (ie: statistical differences in income among groups) with political interpretations of empirical observations (ie: what Critical Race Theory claims to be behind those differences). --ColumbiaXY (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This view presents such a garbled misunderstanding of fact, theory, explanation, and empirical tests that it cannot even be discussed. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411, no, actually, the concept predates any such argument and is based on empirical observation. White privilege has always existed (ask any random sample of black and white people how many times they have been unable to hail a cab). It's only the theory of measuring and describing it that's relatively new.

On a personal note, as one who benefits from a great deal of privilege, as a middle-class white guy from a thousand-year-old school with a stable family background and all the rest, I find it disturbing when people can't see that denying privilege is in itself a form of privilege. No black man can walk out of the door in America or the UK and say "right, today, I will pretend I have no disadvantage due to the colour of my skin", and expect to have that survive until the end of the day, whereas any white man can successfully pretend that being white confers no privilege and can preserve this delusion indefinitely simply by ignoring the evidence of their own eyes. Guy (help!) 09:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: hailing a cab. Many years ago on the show "TV nation" Michael Moore ran a clip where he had asked a successful, well-known and wealthy black actor (Yaphet Kotto) to stand on a street corner in New York and try to get a taxi. Kotto was dressed in a suit, carrying a baby in one arm and a bouquet of flowers in the other. One empty cab after another passed him without stopping. Then Moore had a white ex-felon, dressed in scruffy clothes, do the same. He got a cab right away. That's white privilege. NightHeron (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy, this article is about a concept from CRT. It's important to keep this in mind, because many of the arguments for excluding criticism here revolve around essentially the following argument: "I think white privilege is obvious because of XYZ empirical observations, so any fundamental criticisms of the idea are WP:FRINGE." The problem is that we're discussing a sociological concept which is actually strongly criticized by academics from other fields (for example, Marxists) and social commentators outside academia. Regardless of what you or I think about whether the concept is obviously right or wrong, or whether you think its disturbing to disagree with it (as many social commentators and academics do) or not, the prominent criticisms of the concept should be described in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: The article is not about a concept from CRT. It's about white privilege, a phenomenon that existed well before CRT existed. More precisely, as I wrote earlier, it's about both the phenomenon and the idea of framing discussions of racism around the term white privilege. The latter, as you say, is promoted by CRT, among others. If you read through the article in its present form, I think you'll find that there's actually a lot of criticism. Some, but not all, relates to the use of the "white privilege" framing of discussions of racism in educational settings. Criticism has not been kept out of the article. On the other hand, the claim that there's no such thing as white privilege or that it's not notable would be fringe. NightHeron (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

There are many empirical facts to which the term white privilege clearly applies in the sense of the common meaning of the words white and privilege, that is, an unearned/undeserved benefit that someone gets as a direct result of discrimination against people of color and of being white, a benefit that would be enjoyed by most any white person in that situation and not by a person of color. Above I gave a couple of examples. Those instances of white privilege would exist even if Critical Race Theory had never existed, and they cannot be denied. These facts exist even though one can point to non-white groups with privilege, to white groups without privilege, and to whites who get privileges for reasons other than being white. Legitimate controversy arises when writers extend the use of the term white privilege in ways that don't agree with the common meaning of "privilege", such as the absence of oppression. Critics can also object to the notion that white privilege terminology and analysis is the best way to frame the problem of racism and is the best way to teach students (white privilege pedagogy). Can we try to reach consensus about some of this? NightHeron (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Even assuming that all your empirical claims were true, the idea that not being discriminated against is a "privilege" is something that was promoted by CRT, and which many critics point out does not accord with what the word "privilege" generally means (a benefit reserved for a few). That's one of several prominent criticisms of the theory of white privilege. You keep on saying that white privilege theory is just a set of empirical observations, but it's not just that. It's an interpretation that extrapolates from several empirical observations. According to many critics, it both misuses the word "privilege" and ignores other empirical facts that undermine the theory (such as the success of African immigrants and other non-white immigrant groups in the US). The "legitimate" controversy over white privilege theory extends far beyond educational theory. There is legitimate controversy over the core of the theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: The examples I've given, such as the cab-hailing episode on "TV Nation", amount to more than just the absence of discrimination. In a city with many people wanting taxis (this was in the pre-Uber days) taxi drivers could afford to be picky. If it weren't for race, a driver would normally prefer a well-dressed guy (who'd be likely to leave a big tip) to a poorly-dressed seedy-looking guy (who might not pay or at least would be less likely to tip). However, the point of Michael Moore's little experiment was to show that not only was Yaphet Kotto discriminated against, but also the white guy was automatically accepted and not viewed critically as he would have been if the driver had not been distracted by his own racist preference. Similarly, in the case of my acquaintance who had overstayed her visa but was skipped over by Immigration because of her skin color, she was afforded a benefit beyond what she "deserved" that was not available to the majority of bus passengers, who were Latino. That's a form of privilege, as the word is normally understood. NightHeron (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this your opinion, or can you cite sources for all the assertions you attribute to "many..." etc.? Please state what you refer to as "legitimate controversy over the core of the theory." Otherwise, this comes off as cable news punditry and handwaving and it does not enable other editors to give substantive responses that might lead to resolution of some or all of what you say. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Certainly. In his book, Intellectuals and Race, Thomas Sowell agues that 'privilege' represents an effort by the intelligencia to "downplay or discredit achievement by verbally transforming it into privilege".

Full quote is:

"The very concept of achievement fades into the background or disappears completely in some of the verbal formulations of the intelligencia, where those who turn out to be more successful ex poste are depicted as being privileged ex ante. How far this vision can depart from reality was shown by a report titled 'Ethno-racial inequality in the City of Toronto', which said "The Japanese are among the most privileged group in the city because they were more successful economically than either other minorities there or the white majority'. What makes this conclusion grotesque is a documented history of Japanese discrimination in Canada where people of Japanese ancestry where interned during the second world war longer than Japanese Americans. Efforts of the intelligencia to downplay or discredit achievement by verbally transforming it into privilege are by no means by no means confined to the Japanese minority in Canada." Intellectuals and Race, pp52-53, Basic Books (12 Mar. 2013) 978-0465058723 Keith Johnston (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The core of the theory is that whites benefit disproportionately as against other ethnic groups. Yet In England, working-class whites are doing badly when it comes to higher education. A 2015 report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that white British pupils in the lowest socio-economic quintile are 10 per cent less likely to participate in higher education than any other ethnic group in that quintile. But it isn’t just whites from disadvantaged backgrounds who are struggling. According to the Department for Education, whites in general made less progress in England’s schools in 2018 than Asians, blacks or Chinese. These facts do not support the theory.

When it comes to income, whites are also lagging behind some other ethnic groups. In 2016, white Americans had a median household income of $67,865, lower than Indonesian Americans ($71,616), Pakistani Americans ($72,389), Malaysian Americans ($72,443), Sri Lankan Americans ($73,856), Filipino Americans ($84,620), Taiwanese Americans ($90,1221) and Indian Americans ($110,026). These facts do not support the theory. Keith Johnston (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Images

-sche, good job finding the new image. Do we need more? How about File:Whites_Only.jpg, File:New Orleans Public Service Streetcar Bench with Colored Segregation Sign 01.jpg, File:1943 Colored Waiting Room Sign.jpg, File:Boston Protester White Privilege.jpg? Mathglot (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I sought out an image showing both a white and a colored thing (fountain, waiting room, etc) in the same image or collage so the higher quality of the one for whites could be seen, as this seemed more illustrative to me than a photo showing only a colored thing. A thing reserved to "whites only" could also be illustrative, but despite the name File:Whites_Only.jpg actually depicts a "non-whites only" bench. I don't object to including any of those photos, but others may want to weigh in as to whether they're relevant to white privilege per se as opposed to, say, Racism. (The Boston protestor's photo is already used in the article.) -sche (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I do object on the bass that what is displayed is racism. Lets not confuse readers that white privilege is the same as racism. if it is we may as well marge the articles Keith Johnston (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's not identical. I've seen it described as "the legacy and cause of racism"a good discussion of the relationship and white privilege as the cornerstone of racism.[18]. That's just a couple, there are more and no doubt better analyses of the relationship between the two. That close relationship is why an image showing racism can be useful, especially one that clearly shows the difference between the facilities as the present one does. It occurs to me that this subject is a good example of where political science and sociology are both key to its understanding - my Yale years are long ago but my study of both subjects there still is useful. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)