Talk:Privilege (social inequality)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-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 Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-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)

Nope, the article is a mess. Obsessed with the conspiracy theory of "White privilege". Sure one will have to mention this preposterous concept. But first do an analysis on the fact that social privilege is a far older idea. It got some real meaning in opposition to the figments of cultural Marxists. -- (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2017 (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)

Lede tweaked for NPoV[edit]

I tweaked the lede to reflect the fact that "privilege" is a social theory rather than an objective fact, by changing it from "Privilege is a special right, or advantage available only to a particular person or group of people" to the more NPoV "Privilege is a special right, or advantage which some believe to be available only to a particular person or group of people" (emphasis added). I trust that's acceptable. Bricology (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your change. See for example, the parallel discussion (and RFC) on talk:white privilege. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
...and I RE-reverted it, Yanping Nora Soong. The article itself elsewhere states "Some scholars who believe that privilege exists...". All my addition did was to repeat that lack of uniformity of acceptance of "privilege" being factual, in the lede. Without the qualification that I added, the lede appears to state definitively that "privilege" exists, rather than it being a "concept" and a "theory", as repeatedly described elsewhere in the article. If you're going to try to remove my pointing out that "privilege" is something that is believed to exist by some scholars, then there is no reason why you shouldn't likewise object to the same language elsewhere in the article and remove it as well. It's bad Wiki etiquette act unilaterally to remove another editor's additions without good cause, which you do not have. If you try to revert my addition again, I will apply for protection under 3RR. Bricology (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I reverted it per WP:ALLEGED. We are defining the concept and the lead represents the prevailing definition of that concept. This also matches the lead of white privilege. Further, there's no such thing as "protection under WP:3RR"... please discuss your WP:BOLD change to the lead per WP:BRD before editing it again. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
User:EvergreenFir wrote "We are defining the concept and the lead represents the prevailing definition of that concept." Bullshit. The lede, as it was, did not include the term "concept" or any other such qualifiers. It explicitly stated "Privilege is a special right, or advantage..." There is no "prevailing definition" of "privilege", only prevailing usage of a term amongst some members of a particular field. That no more proves that privilege exists a priori than the fact that white academics once largely believed and claimed that black people were inferior, somehow proved that notion to be true. The reality is that there is significant diversity of opinion amongst sociologists, anthropologists, and others in relevant fields as to whether or not privilege exists (cf. Lewis Gordon, Shelby Steele, Orlando Patterson, John McWhorter and Walter E. Williams, to name but five), and this diversity of opinion and lack of objective definition was already repeatedly reflected elsewhere in the article, where qualifiers such as "theory", "concept" and the like are used, as well as the phrase "Some scholars who believe that privilege exists..." which has long been in the "Criticism" section. For those qualifiers to be used elsewhere throughout the article, but to exclude them from the lede and to therefore assert certainty and uniformity there, is inconsistent, confusing and untenable. My adding it to the lede is anything but "bold"; it is merely consistent with the rest of the article. You claimed "there's no such thing as 'protection under WP:3RR'" Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about. As it says at : "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours." Given that you've only been on WP for less than 3 years, you might not have knowledge of that, but I doubt it. (I've been an editor here for ten years, and I encountered the 3RR very early on.) Nevertheless, you should've known by now that it's bad WP etiquette to unilaterally revert another editor's additions to an article. If you object to content they've added and you can't demonstrate vandalism or satisfy other specific criteria, you should first try to resolve it on the Talk page, and any changes to other editors' contributions should be achieved through WP:Consensus. Ultimately, we can debate the relative merits of the subject all you want, but one thing you can't do is to claim that there is uniformity of opinion as to whether or not it exists, nor can you marginalize relevant professionals who assert that it doesn't exist. Particularly (and ironically) because the five I referenced all happen to be black and have frequently had their views marginalized by whites. I'm not going to allow you to perpetuate that here. Bricology (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Bricology: Edits to long-standing leads are considered bold and it's worse etiquette to revert someone else's reversion of your bold edit. See WP:BRD. I know what 3RR is and you know I know it. Back to the issue: we've had this same obnoxious discussion on white privilege over and over. It's been the subject of multiple RfCs as well and after the most recent RfC the wording in the lead is White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.. I don't see why this is any different on this article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
User:EvergreenFir wrote "Edits to long-standing leads are considered bold". WRONG. I defy you to quote from WP:BOLD to show that the length of time a lede has been extant differentiates between an edit and a bold edit. I also challenge you to quote from WP:BOLD to show that what I've done was a bold edit. In fact, it was not. I have not added any new information to the article. All I have done is to take content already in the body of the article and reflected it in the lede for the sake of consistency and NPoV. That is no different than if something appeared in the lede but not in the body of the article, and an editor adding that same content to the body. NOT BOLD. You wrote "it's worse etiquette to revert someone else's reversion of your bold edit. See WP:BRD". I don't know what orifice you're pulling that notion out of, but it ain't on WP"BRD. This is from the lede on that page: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting..." Second, it standard practice on WP in situations where the veracity of the topic has produced controversy, to include that in the lede. For example, Armenian Genocide includes in the lede the fact that the Turks generally deny that the Armenian Genocide took place, despite the genocide being well-documented and attested to. To quote you: "I don't see why this is any different on this article." If you actually did understand the 3-Revert Rule, you would not have claimed that "there's no such thing as "protection under WP:3RR". Clearly, there is, as that article explicitly points out, and as I have quoted. As for the wording of the lede at White privilege (or white skin privilege) -- I'll be taking a critical look at that article next and if I find inaccuracies, PoV or other faults there, I will deal appropriately with them. Finally, for someone who has taken the trouble to identify themselves so explicitly on their Talk page as genderqueer, feminist, LGBT, etc., your objections to my edit give the appearance of tendentiousness. Bricology (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue guidelines here. Your edit was bold and your arguments pedantic. Edit on white privilege at your own risk. There was just an rfc about the lead and edits on it would be considered against that closure. You have a battleground approach to this topic and you state as much on your own user page. That you bring up my identity as pertinent to this discussion is at best ad hominem and border on harassment. Continue that line of discussion and I will move this to ANI. Note if you have any actual comments on the edit or article, I recommend you continue them here.
Armenian genocide is not a good example as the Turkish rejection of the phrase is the perhaps the second most notable thing about it. I expect criticism to be in the last of this article as well, but not in the lead sentence and not with the intent of questioning the term itself. Indeed, the grieving of the phrase is the fourth paragraph of the lead. The first three decide the term and its meaning as it is, without caveats or insertions of doubt like "some people believe". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
EvergreeFir, you said that the lead defines the concept (of privilege) and represents the prevailing definition of that concept. But in truth, many Wikipedia articles use language that displays ambiguity or dissent, right in the lead paragraph. Take African American Vernacular English, more broadly known outside of academia as "Ebonics". It reads "African American Vernacular English (AAVE)—also called African American English (AAE); less precisely Black English, Black Vernacular, Black English Vernacular (BEV), or Black Vernacular English (BVE)—is a variety (dialect, ethnolect and sociolect) of American English, most commonly spoken today by urban working-class and largely bi-dialectal middle-class African Americans. Non-linguists often call it Ebonics (a term that also has other meanings and connotations)." That description accurately reflects both the prevailing academic view and terminology as well as including the most common non-academic term, which reflects heterodoxy. It doesn't subvert the meaning of the academic term, it simply includes a non-academic term, even one that might carry negative freight. I don't think people are doing the accuracy or the utility of the topic any favors by pretending that there aren't opposing viewpoints, both within academia and without. And I say this as a woman of color who taught in the sociology department of a university in New York for nearly thirty years. Marion Bee (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Wealth Privilege[edit]

  • Should there be a separate category for people who receive privilege and notoriety for simply being wealthy? Brock Turner and a few others? Regardless of any other privilege category?

very ethnocentric in flavor[edit]

Come out of 20/21st century United States. There is more out there. Added a nod to it w/ a couple of see also entries Elinruby (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)