Talk:Privilege (social inequality)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

An unhappy customer[edit]

Oh my gosh this article. Someone please give this at least a modicum of credibility, a footnote, something. The Wikipedia is not a place to carefully document your social justice fantasy roster of accusatory terms, it is for verifiable facts and theories. ( (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC))

  • Yep, lots of articles need work...feel free to help out! Drmies (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah this article is kind of ..... whacky and unresearched. (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "a modicum of credibility" If you had clicked through to the specific examples you'd see that. And then you'd see on the talk pages there yet more cries from the privileged that their privilege doesn't exist. There is simply no pleasing the bigots. (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a great deal of changes have occurred in the time intervening, but I found this article well-substantiated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivamoque (talkcontribs) 00:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag[edit]

I've tagged this article for a neutrality because

1. Language of the article is unprofessional and biased (e.g "Privilege is generally invisible to those who have it", should include a reference in the sentence in addition to a citation, such as "According to x,").

2. This article states 'privilege' as a matter of fact (e.g "Privilege has many benefits"). It is convention when discussing sociological concepts to make clear that it is a theoretical model(e.g "Social a set of concepts in the social sciences and political theory centered on models of social stratification in which people are grouped into a set of hierarchical social categories").

3. Input of opinion and commentary by the author (e.g "It began as an academic concept, but has since become popular outside of academia", no citation)

4. The section "denial of privilege" is not criticism of the concept, but a dismissal of criticism of the concept. Section "Other criticism" should be labeled as simply "Criticism" since previous section does not address criticism. The "Denial of Privilege" section does not address the denial of privilege as a concept, but seems to assume privilege as a matter of fact. Deniers in this section do not deny privilege, but rather deny their own privilege.

5. Article employs weasel words (e.g "Privilege, as understood and described by researchers...") — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedditorEditor (talkcontribs) 04:35, 15 July 2014‎

Yep. Regarding #4, I'd add that the term "denial" is a bad choice for a section name to begin with, implying that the "denier" is wrong or delusional (cf. "Holocaust denial" and the term "denial" in psychology). "Criticism" would be better. (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I've attempted to address some of these issues, which appeared to me as well. I think to add some more varying perspectives at this point probably would benefit the article the most. (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I've also attempted to address some of these issues, though I don't believe my effort was quite enough to warrant removing the neutrality tag yet. I'm just not that good of a writer! :) RobinHood70 talk 19:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I removed the tag. Even if the WP:SPA was justified at the time, the article currently gives a straightforward exposition of the concept with cites. If anyone has concerns with particular passages, they can be addressed, but the article as a whole is not non-neutral. Dohn joe (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Privilege is invisible phrasing[edit]

Just to expand on my edit summary, I reverted this change because saying "privilege is" inherently subscribes to the concept of privilege rather than describing it neutrally, like "privilege is described as". The resulting phrase also didn't work gramatically. RobinHood70 talk 16:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead edits[edit]

Violates LEAD. Contains an example which does not belong in lead. Example is OR. Uses terms not mentioned in article (intersectionality and ceteris paribus for example). This does not belong in lead. Stop edit warring please. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, here you are. Well, ceteris paribus and intersectionality definitely deserve mention in the article. I'm not insisting on the example because there is one later. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ceteris paribus[edit]

The ceteris paribus issue is a crucial aspect of privilege that is often misunderstood by outsiders, who tend to understand privilege as a monolithic concept (leading to questions such as "how can I be privileged when I'm poor?!" and the "Oppression Olympics" meme), which is why it deserves mention in the intro.

@EvergreenFir: You have failed to explain how repeating a point already present in the article can be OR. That doesn't begin to make sense. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You aren't repeating it, you're doing WP:SYNTH. No mention of key concepts in your sentence in the actual article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Which parts exactly do you take issue with? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

See Also[edit]

Scott Illini recently added some of the potential privilege types to the "See Also" section. WP:SEEALSO says that links that appear in the text are normally not included, but doesn't explicitly forbid it. I removed them on those grounds, but I can see an argument for including them, since they're not linked to by their actual article names in the text. I thought I'd open a discussion so that there's a clear consensus one way or the other. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Robin Hood  (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)