Talk:White privilege/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about White privilege. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

A truly hopeless article with truly hopeless editors

The problems begin early with the totally false first sentence of the lede: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to advantages that white people enjoy in all societies."

Really?! In China? In Vietnam? In Burma? In Japan?

Before the lede was altered during this past week, there was some hope. No longer. Apostle12 (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the "all societies" wording either. The recent revision is OK; alternatives might be explored. Do check this out:

Second, there is a global racial hierarchy that helps to shape the power and the prejudices of each race. At the top of this hierarchy are whites. The reasons are deep-rooted and profound. White societies have been the global top dogs for half a millennium, ever since Chinese civilisation went into decline. With global hegemony, first with Europe and then the US, whites have long commanded respect, as well as arousing fear and resentment, among other races. Being white confers a privilege, a special kind of deference, throughout the world, be it Kingston, Hong Kong, Delhi, Lagos - or even, despite the way it is portrayed in Britain, Harare. Whites are the only race that never suffers any kind of systemic racism anywhere in the world. And the impact of white racism has been far more profound and baneful than any other: it remains the only racism with global reach.

— Martin Jacques, "The global hierarchy of race"; The Guardian, 19 September 2003.

Need I even point out that this is a second WP:NPA violation?

Well, just to be obvious about it, I have.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Certainly this was not written by a white man who has spent time in Japan, in Hawaii, or a black ghetto anywhere in America. Apostle12 (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If it is any comfort know that most of the news of the world, the opinions, the articles on Wikipedia, the books on Africa and Asia, are however written by "A white man" kind of proves the point of the entire article your self -reflective anecdotal remarks. --Inayity (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, don't quite understand your post. Does Wikipedia have a "whites only" policy?

BTW, why do you assume my remark was "self-reflective?" I wrote "white man" because anti-white racism in many societies is experienced differently by white men than by white women, and its manifestations are far less subtle than those of "white privilege"--e.g. white men being banned from Tokyo's business hotels (a common practice), or white men being attacked (sometimes killed) for venturing near Hawaii's "Kanaka Only" beaches, or (what every white man in America knows) being subject to violent attack if present in the black ghetto of any American city, especially after nightfall. Apostle12 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BIAS -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

UseTheCommandLine, thank you for the quote. Considering the history of colonialism, I imagine it would be much easier to find verifiable sources to support the view that white privilege exists worldwide than it would be to find comparable sources to support the view that white privilege exists in every last society (a stronger claim). -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that was more likely Groupuscule's contribution, as it was not mine. good quote, nonetheless. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You both have made a number of valuable contributions to the article. Thanks to both of you! -- Marie Paradox (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything in the body of the article to support the view that white privilege exists in every society? Only if the zombie apocalypse has come, and the US, South Africa, and Brazil are the only three countries that have yet to fall. (Apostle12, did you know something I did not, when you said that working on this article was "hopeless"?) I am not exuberant about "in many societies", but I suppose that is better than saying nothing about scope and leaving others to assume that white privilege exists in every society. Do we have any other suggestions? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A return to the language that prevailed before recent wholesale revision of the lede would be nice.

Within the academic discipline of critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from their position in society as on the societal disadvantages that people of color experience. White privilege may be defined as the "unearned advantages of being white in a racially stratified society", and white privilege is seen as a powerful legacy of racial identity that is often unacknowledged by whites.[1] Much of the English-language scholarship on white privilege focuses on American and European societal conditions, since inequality between whites and non-whites is a long-standing feature in these societies.

That language had evolved over time and better conveyed what "white privilege" is about. Apostle12 (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What specific elements of the new lede would you like to see changed, and how? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is so much! I will attempt an analysis as time allows. But right now duty demands that I make my way to work.

Truly, the previous lede was so far superior that I would seriously suggest reverting to it. Apostle12 (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Apostle12, I totally understand about having to pay the bills, but when you do have the chance, could you perhaps use bold or italic emphasis to indicate which parts of the old lead you would like to see restored? I think it would help me at least to see at a glance and get a better idea of what sort of compromise we might be able to work toward. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not exactly helpful advice. If you are unable to articulate a coherent criticism, then your suggestion is arbitrary, and hints at WP:OWN. There is no time limit on this, as WP:WIP says. I would be inclined to say, once again, that other sections of the article need more attention than the lede; we can always come back to it.

I would like to propose, Apostle12, that you and I (at least, others are welcome of course) choose another section to work on together. I would propose the one on Justice, which has had a "requires expansion" tag on it since late 2010. I dont think this talk page is the most appropriate forum for the initial bigger edits, but perhaps your or my sandbox could be used to that end. After some editing and expansion, we will post sections of it here for additional comment.

How about it? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

With global hegemony, first with Europe and then the US, whites have long commanded respect, as well as arousing fear and resentment, among other races. Completely ignorant. What global hegemony did Sorbs or Kashubs enjoy? What respect is there in Polish jokes. What fear and resentment do Czechs create? --Questionentity (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

POV (December 2012)

I have put up a POV flag at the top of this page for the following reasons:

1. Lack of neutrality in the lede. The lede states the concept of white privilege as fact, when it is contentious both in academia and among the general public.

2. Cleansing of the Overview section of references to Critical Race Theory and Whiteness Theory. The Overview and History sections used to have a much more detailed discussion of the relation of the concept of white privilege to Critical Race Theory and Whiteness Theory. Groupuscule's recent edit moved these references down the page.

3. Use of phrases like "seminal work" to describe various articles and books developing the concept of white privilege.

4. Uncritical paraphrasing of racist sources, such as Marimba Ani.

This is a condensed list, but a more thorough examination of the article reveals many additional problems. The article as it is gives the impression that the concept of white privilege has near-universal support in academia, and gives undue weight to writers who support the concept. In the field of history, the "seminal work[s]" of Allen and Roediger on whiteness have received serious criticism, with some historians describing their work as "faddish" and "shoddy" ([1] [2]). There is a discussion earlier in the talk page (Changes to Lede) of the academic criticism of "white privilege," but other editors, rather than acknowledging the existence of academic criticism or responding to the sources I listed, decided to break off conversation on the lede. In order for the POV issue to be resolved, at a minimum, the issues raised here and in the "Changes to Lede" section must be addressed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of this POV flag. Apostle12 (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ani Yurugu - review on WP

I have just browsed quickly through Yurugu and unless there are massive sources (plural) of ref to say it is racist, the racist counter argument is out. If it is racist b/c one editor does not like its message--too bad, thats not why we are here. Here is a CRITIQUE, of her book Critique of Ani now no where in that critique does her detractor call her racist, or not an expert. The critique is inline with scholarly disagreement. I have seen some flaws, some typical Afrocentrism and assumptions in her work, and her orientation, none of that disqualifies her analysis which is very very deep.--Inayity (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the amazon review linked. I'm willing to support the inclusion of the reference, based on this. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I do wonder , Inayity, if you might be able to summarize Yurungu's position in a more substantial way than "self-image"? If it's as deep as you say I imagine this won't be very hard. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I will need time to do that, when I said it was deep I meant she aint playing around with her research, this is not garden variety garbage Afrocentric drivel. It is a THICK book with 1000s of ref, invaluable perspectives from a non-Eurocentric POV. And yes she has better things to say than the ref that was deleted (which was sourced from Mark Christian). ill b back. p.s. There is no overt mention of melanin, only ref opinions in the works of other. --Inayity (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not how many references she includes in her work. Her theory on race, Melanin Theory, is widely regarded as racist and pseudo-scientific. The first reference in the Melanin Theory article, which is actually generally supportive of the concept of white privilege and racial interpretations of history, also labels Melanin Theory as racist. I earlier cited one source on Marimba Ani and Melanin Theory. A second source is here. A third source, Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes specifically deals with Marimba Ani's views on race. On p. 247, S. R. Howe writes,

In Yurugu (Ani 1994) [Ani] sets out a sweeping, heavily documented critique of the entire structure of Western though and behaviour. Her title comes from a Dogon legend of a doomed, destructive, incomplete being, the rejected offspring of the Creator. This, of course, is her image of the European: the irony being that her source for the Dogon story is a European writer, Marcel Griaule. Ani's book has the dubious merit of carrying its relentless pursuit of racialized thinking to logical conclusions within its own structure, by having two separate Bibliographies and Indexes - one for 'Africans', one for others. This gross intellectual apartheid has certain logical difficulties, of course; its fencing off of 'Africans' (actually including hardly any African as opposed to Afro-American authors) seems to contradict the book's central claim that the basic division lies between Europeans and everybody else. [...] But her categorization has further, rather predictable problems. W.E.B. Du Bois, among many people of mixed descent, is placed in the 'African' Index and Bibliography, with scant regard for the French and Dutch ancestry of which he was actually rather proud.

In other words, this is a work of "racialized thinking," which engages in "gross intellectual apartheid." Howe goes on to deal with what he calls Ani's "wholesale" acceptance of the "Aryan myth," the idea that "racism might be 'a biological or other type of instinct' among 'Aryans'" (ibid.: p. 283). Given these sorts of views, I do not see how we can plausibly cite Ani as an expert on the views or thinking of Europeans. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you once again, Thucydides411, for raising the bar in this discussion. Apostle12 (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

REJECTED - That is one author's opinion of another author he is no Gospel expert on Ani. he is no greater than Tunde. JstorIt can be included. And Apostle, your little remarks are not inline with how a talk page is supposed to be use, this is not a boxing ring!--Inayity (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nor do I regard it as such. Your arrogance may be showing, once again...Apostle12 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. --UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Inayity, do you think you could find a reference by someone who (a) is more or less just as qualified as Ani, (b) is not as controversial as Ani, and (c) who more explicitly links their claims about European culture to white privilege? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think many of us involved in this discussion could benefit from reviewing WP:OUTRAGE and WP:ENEMY. I have found it useful. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this reminder. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In Yurugu (Ani 1994) [Ani] sets out a sweeping, heavily documented critique of the entire structure of Western though and behaviour(...)This, of course, is her image of the European Wait, wait. Nobody noticed this? She doesn't consider people in Eastern Europe to be europeans? Because they aren't Western by any measure. Or does it mean she doesn't consider them white? Can somebody explain? --Questionentity (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

White privilege of inmates in Auschwitz in regards to Japanese?

What was the white privilege of white inmates of Nazi German concentration camps like Poles, Czechs, Belorussians? How did their privilege manifested itself in regards to say non-white Japanese people? Would be grateful for explaining this question? Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Questionentity (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the talk page, Questionentity. Please note that this page is for discussing how to improve the article and not for discussing the topic (i.e. white privilege) the article is written about. Do you have any suggestions on how we could improve the article? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The article focus is on USA. What about white privilege in other parts of the world? How were white Poles or Belarussians privileged in WW2 compared to non-white Japanese for example?

Or more modern studies-how are white emigrants from Romania or Bulgaria privileged in UK compared to non-white people for example with Hindu, Pakistani or Japanese origins who live in UK? It would be good to include information on this in the article. --Questionentity (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

History of colonialism by white Europeans-false and borderline offensive generalization against a diverse number of people just because of their skin colour and geographical location

This statement is borderline offensive if not racist: Nevertheless, some people who use the term "white privilege" describe it as a worldwide phenomenon, resulting from the history of colonialism by white Europeans I am curious how people like Slovaks, Belarussians or Moldovans have a history of colonialism. Majority of white Europeans had no history of colonialism(in fact many were victims of colonialism like Ukrainians) and the above sentence is not only incorrect but offensive trying to blame a whole group of diverse and often unconnected people solely based on the colour of their skin and continent they come from. This sentence needs to be either removed or information added to it that only a few groups in Europe were connected to colonialism with majority not being involved.--Questionentity (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As another editor has helpfully pointed out, this is not the appropriate forum for discussion about the topic itself, but only about changes to the article. The talk pages tend to be more productive when the editors involved with a page are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and procedures, both in terms of WP as a whole, and in terms of this page (relevant policies can often be found linked at the top of the talk page, as you can see here.) A policy that seems particularly relevant, as I pointed out in a previous discussion, is WP:OUTRAGE. An essay, WP:ENEMY also seems appropriate to quote here.

I look forward to working with you on the page.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Currently the article contains misleading and false sentence that should be removed as it concerns a borderline racist statement against people with certain skin colour and continent origins. This sentence is historically incorrect(when did Lemkos or Slovaks have colonial empires?) and thus should be removed to improve the quality of the article. Many false and offensives sentences can be sourced but this doesn't mean they should be included in articles.

--Questionentity (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Questionentity, I think that somewhere in your objection there is a good edit waiting to happen. It is arguable that in the US and elsewhere it is not just Europeans that are taken to be the norm or the standard but Western Europeans. If we find a verifiable source, it would be good to include something about this and how it relates to white privilege in the article. However, I do not believe the sentence you are objecting to is problematic. I do not believe it means that all Europeans were responsible for colonialism (that is obviously not the case) -- only that the people responsible for the specific instances of colonization under discussion were European. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Questionentity, I am about to revert your changes to the lead. I do not think anyone here would say that what you have written about Eastern Europeans is false. There are at least two issues. The first is that you need to find a source that shows how what you have written relates to the topic of the article (i.e. white privilege). Second, it almost certainly does not belong in the lead. The lead is supposed to give an overview of the major points of the topic. Could you take a look at Wikipedia's policies on due weight and lead sections? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait, how can the fact that whole white nations were declared to be inhuman and sent to camps for mass murderer by Nazi Germany with its non-white ally Japan- not related to the concept of privilege of white people? This completely DUE--Questionentity (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are the problems I see with the added paragraph. First off the statement you added is not sourced. You need to make it sourced. Additionally it is making claims that should be opinions. If these were the opinions or official stance of the Nazi Germany government then it can be included in the article starting that these were merely the opinion of the Nazi Government. You'll find that people will not be reverting you if you were to present it as such. Also you may want this to be a separate paragraph or even section or even an entirely new article depending on the amount of sourced material you find. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A discussion of Nazism and white privilege is unlikely to be helpful. For an in depth explanation of why, see Godwin's law. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I find it extremely helpful and interesting. It is directly connected to the topic for obvious reasons. Godwin's Law doesn't apply here, as Nazism dealt directly with awarding privileged status to racial groups, including non-whites such as Japanese and whites such as Poles or Belorussians. No wiki article on privilege allegedly enjoyed by white people disregardless of their ethnic background can be written without this issue being mentioned --Questionentity (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Questionentity, due weight has more to do with how much weight it is given in academic/scholarly discourse than in whether it deserves weight by any other measure. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Marie Paradox is correct here. WP:UNDUE starts Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, ... it's about the sources, not the population mass. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Article should mention somewhere white population.

When you realize that the US is home to 225 million white American citizens of all descriptions it should put this in perspective. Most of what is said in the lede paragraph about 'white privilege' is equally enjoyed by Chinese in China, Africans in Africa, and in fact by the largest ethnic group in any country with rare exceptions, like pre-Mandela South Africa. A much more global perspective is in order. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Stuartyeates (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes the majority perspective in any geographical area tends to predominate. Apostle12 (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I know my comment above is true as a sociologist who has lived in several continents myself. But perhaps not even RSS would persuade armchair editors in ivory towers. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

What you know is irrelevant. What can be backed up with reliable sources is all that matters. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

New editors

I have posted at The Administrators' Noticeboard regarding the recent edits from new/ip editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UseTheCommandLine (talk • contribs) 03:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also posted at WP:SPI about this incident. Although I will be the first to apologize if I am wrong, the timing, choice of edited material, and behavior displayed by Questionentity make me suspicious of a WP:SOCK violation. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you mentioned me by name in your investigation, I must object. I have never used, and never intend to use, sockpuppets. You seem unable to absorb the simple idea that obvious defects in the article attract repeated objections that take a similar form from various editors. I will await your apology.

As for comparing my behavior and edits to the behavior and quality of edits offered by the new arrivals, I find myself a bit insulted. Apostle12 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed sources and the article and its basically only about USA, almost all the data is about USA

I have reviewed sources and the article and its basically only in USA, almost all the data is about USA. This should be clearly stated in the article, as it can make a false impression that its claims represent the whole world. --Questionentity (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I question the value of additing the geographical imbalance and globalize tags and especially of adding both, as this seems redundant. Why do we need both? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We do not need any, WP per most books is largely USA, SA and Australia. That is reflected. Would it be fair for us to add Europe and then someone comes and puts the tags because we forgot to mention the island of St Lucia? Or Syria? Worldview and Weight go together, I am sure many topics, depending on their global impact will be more unique to certain areas of the globe. We should add Europe but to flag the article with two tags for leaving it out is a little excessive. --Inayity (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We do not need any, WP per most books is largely USA, SA and Australia. Majority of white people don't live in USA, SA and Australia Inayity. You will find large numbers of white people in places like Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus, Austria, Serbia as well. If the topic concerns only people in this three countries this should be clearly defined instead of making unfair and ignorant generalization against people solely on basis of their skin colour. --Questionentity (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia are written by the weight of what sources say, this is WP:NOTa WP:SOAP. White privilege like Anti-Semitism is a complete term, not Anti and Semitic (as that means something else eg. Anti Semitic speaker) it is not white and then privilege. It is whiteprivilege and we are discuss that word/term per sources and nothing else. --Inayity (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If a term is used entirely in the US / Canada or the reliable sources only talk about it's use in US / Canada, that's all we can talk about in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That's because nearly all the sources to even mention the phrase 'white privilege' espouse a distinct pov, which is fine for them but not encyclopedic or neutral for us. I looked at a few of the sources that discuss it, one of them said that the phenomenon of 'white privilege' has historically been a barrier to the goals of socialism. The better part of these books appeared within the past decade, and before 1991 this kind of P.O.V. like "white privilege has historically been a barrier to the goals of socialism" was only to be heard from the likes of Jim Jones, ironically enough he was white. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Indeed. If a term is used entirely in the US / Canada or the reliable sources only talk about it's use in US / Canada, that's all we can talk about in the article" Then we should also mention strongly that this theory applies mostly to USA and Canada. Currently it makes impression that it is universal for most societies.--Questionentity (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is your position, 71.127.139.4, you are free to file a request for deletion. I keep pointing to WP:OUTRAGE, but I see no evidence of the ideas contained there being accepted.
Which source?
Why do you see this as a problem?

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Why do you see this as a problem?" Incorrect information and generalization. If the white privilage theory is used primarily in USA, South Africa or Canada this must be pointed out in the lead itself, currently it is formulated in such a way that it suggest universal use across all countries with very diverse ethnic groups-solely based on their skin colour. Obviously this is not correct. As even supporters of white privilege theory here have confirmed this is used primarily in few western countries, then I am certain it wouldn't be a problem to formulate a sentence explaining this.--Questionentity (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

UseTheCommandLine, why would I request deletion? I don't want to see the article deleted, I want it to describe what the concept is, and explain who holds to this concept and who doesn't. Are you asking why is it a problem for wikipedia to be a vehicle for endorsing and promoting divisive and controversial positions? 71.127.139.4 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No, i am asking why "one of them said that the phenomenon of 'white privilege' has historically been a barrier to the goals of socialism" is being offered as problematic.

You state "nearly all the sources to even mention the phrase 'white privilege' espouse a distinct pov, which is fine for them but not encyclopedic or neutral for us" which suggests that you are opposed to the inclusion of the concept in WP. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is not encyclopedic or neutral for us to espouse a pov, that is policy. By all means have an article about the pov, but such articles are strictly not to adopt the said pov in describing it. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The reference list seems like it pulls together a quite diverse literature, from a number of subjects. Your suggestion that we refrain from even acknowledging that white privilege is, for better or worse, a legitimate concept runs afoul of WP:VALID and WP:MNA, in my view. perhaps we need input from other administrators to sort this out? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think what the IP user is saying is that the article is written from the position of supporters of white privilege theory, instead of presenting it in neutral way. We need to ensure that we don't state it as fact, but as a concept supported by some people, opposed by others.

--Questionentity (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Article protected

In response to a request at WP:RFPP, I have fully protected the article for 3 days. Please work out the content disputes amicably and constructively. More battling in the article after the lock expires will not be warmly received.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverting POV Tag

Thucydides411,

I will be reverting your addition of the tag. Here is my response to the issues you raise:

Lead: The current lead is one that the vast majority of the editors approved of, and the majority of editors here are okay with not working on it right now. Also, you need to respect that whatever your and Apostle12's motives are it looks bad when an editor is gone for four months after contributing very little and then returns just a couple of weeks after an invitation sent out only to people who agree with the person who sent it and the invitee immediately takes up the pet project of the person who sent the invitation. It looks even worse when you[3] and Apostle12[4] have been asked to specify your points of disagreement or propose and alternative, and neither of you have been forthcoming; it looks as though you are taking an all-or-nothing approach in a process that requires listening and compromise. We do not want to give users the impression that it is acceptable to canvas or be tendentious editors to get what one wants.
Groupuscule's recent edits: This is trivial and does not warrant the addition of the tag.
"Seminal work": I recommend looking up seminal in the dictionary and seeing if you still believe it is a word we should avoid. If you do, change it to something that you do not see as POV. As I have told you before, changing wording to make the article less POV is the sort of edit that has been the least likely to be objected to.
Ani: As I have already told you, I think the claim in question is irrelevant to the article. I will not object if you decide to simply delete it. But if you will not delete it, it does not warrant a POV tag. "P is racist; X says P; therefore we cannot cite X to support the claim that Q" is not good reasoning for editors to apply.

Finally, if you are inclined to add a tag again, could you try to be more transparent in your edit? Please do not say you are adding a tag to "this" page unless the tag is in fact only being added to the Talk page. And please give your announcement of it a heading that accurately describes the contents. (I would have never expected to see an announcement of an added POV tag in an edit labeled "Good Food for thought Tim Wise:".) --Marie Paradox (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Marie Paradox, you have been harping on "canvassing" for weeks now, repeatedly referring people to the obsessive discussion you began on my talk page - so obsessive, I quit editing out of total frustration with your covert attacks. My request that some other editors join the discussion was completely transparent; I announced it here and I clearly stated my reasons for doing so. Please let it alone already and just deal with the many substantive issues Thucydides411 has so patiently brought to our attention. Apostle12 (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Apostle12, I wish you had read Wikipedia's policy on canvassing, as one of your other fellow editors suggested weeks ago, because then you would see that transparency is irrelevant to the question of whether you were canvassing. I will be happy to drop this matter as soon as your decision to invite three editors, all of whom share your view, to return to this talk page stops having consequences for the other editors here. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I did read WP:CAN, Marie Paradox. Once again you covertly attack me by implying that you know I have not read it, when in fact you know nothing of the kind. As for the relevance of my transparency and my reasons for contacting specific editors, we simply disagree and you continue to misstate my reasons, ignoring what I have written here on Talk.

I note that my decision to issue the invitation has had only positive consequences for the article - a short note from EyePhoenix and Thucydides411's very intelligent and incisive analyses here on Talk, which I hope will spark a reconsideration of various issues by yourself, Usethe CommandLine, Groupuscule, Xenophrenic and others. I believe that collectively you have ignored WP:OWN in the editing of this article. The recent arrival of other editors, some of whose editing has been disruptive, has nothing to do with my invitation--to legitimize your continued harping by implying my involvement constitutes yet another covert attack. UsetheCommandLine even went so far as to accuse me of sockpuppetry, which is of course totally false.

Now time for a covert attack of my own: I applaud your success in discouraging any editors with whom you disagree so you can have the article all to yourselves. Apostle12 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Marie Paradox, are you making an accusation of canvassing? If so, then state it. My motives are clear: I object to the tone and balance of the article, and have attempted to constructively engage you and others on this subject. I actually provided an alternative lede [5], which was then reverted. I gave an explanation for the lede change [6], and then engaged in discussion of the change with other editors. Those discussions have been broken off by others, including yourself. The accusation that I have been a disagreeable editor is surprising - I have not been in the business of reverting other editors' contributions, and I have been discussing the issue with you and others here at length.

As it is, I cannot change the lede, as I know it will be reverted. The POV issues remain, however, and so should the flag, until they are addressed. I will address two of your points here in more detail:

Groupuscule's edits have had the effect of further obscuring the origin of the term "white privilege," and the fields within which it is primarily used. From a number of comments in the "Changes to Lede" section, editors have expressed discomfort with the "baggage" of Critical Race Theory, and a desire to distance "white privilege" from that theory. I do not think this is a correct reading of the history of the term, or its present use in academia.
Marimba Ani's racist view of the deficiencies of white skin isn't just one of several disparate views she holds. Her work is premised on a fundamental divide between soulful Africans and callously rational Europeans. Her entire framework for judging the world is racist, and her various statements on Europeans are outgrowths of this framework.

I am reverting your removal of the tag. I am hopeful that we can come to a compromise on the lede, and other neutrality issues in the article, but the tag is appropriate until these issues have been resolved. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the POV tag, though I do disagree with some of Thucydides411's criticisms. I think the flag most clearly signifies the contentiousness between editors here re: what constitutes substantial, scholarly criticism, and the scope of the article itself. Previously, when the mitigating language in the lede was introduced, I sought input from WP:MOS and perhaps we need to go in that direction. Perhaps we could ask for input from WP:Sociology, or WP:Discrimination, both WikiProjects which have an interest in this article. If a POV flag is what allows us to move forward on the rest of the article, I see no reason to dispute that. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have posted requests for assistance at WikiProject:Sociology and WikiProject:Discrimination.

I would also like to thank Thucydides411 for their substantial engagement with the Talk page and the WP:BRD process. (I use 'their' not to depersonalize, but because I do not know which gender pronoun you prefer. It feels a bit awkward though, so if you do have a preference, Thucydides411, please let your fellow editors know. I prefer 'he', for what it's worth) -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I support the POV tag. Apostle12 (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not for me to decide whether Apostle12 was canvassing, when he invited you here. I will point out, however, that one of Apostle12's stated reasons for inviting you and two other editors, as opposed to editors who might be more inclined to disagree with him, was that you "objected to the absence of any criticism of 'white privilege theory'"[7], and since returning your primary focus has been on including criticism.

As for the "alternative lede", it was, assuming your description of your edit was accurate, the same lead that we had had before the edit that the majority of the editors here approved of. I would have appreciated it, if you had tried to find a way to combine the strengths of both; as I said, all-or-nothing thinking is not the way to go here. When I saw that my patience had lasted longer than the patience of my fellow editors, I decided to move on; I wish you had done the same.

Having said all that, I will not revert your addition of the tag. I trust that you will welcome the reversion yourself once we do all we can to address your criticism without running afoul of Wikipedia's policy.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong about the issue of canvassing, and I hold your insinuations to be in bad faith, as an attempt to exclude editors with whom you disagree from editing the article. As I have already pointed out, I posted in July to the talk page, saying I was going to work on the article. I have been busy, but once I had time, I returned to the article to work on it. Again, if you have an accusation to make, state it -- better yet, report it, and leave a notice on my talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I have acknowledged more than once before, you had previous involvement in which it became known that your thoughts on white privilege were the same as those of everyone else Apostle12 invited to return to the article. I have no interest in barring people for disagreeing with me. I want people of all political leanings to be equally welcome on this talk page; that is the whole point. Please take care that you do not assume bad faith in your own "hold"ing of what people say to be in bad faith. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's too bad you continue to mistate this. I did not know Thucydides411 thoughts on white privilege when I invited him back, nor did I know the thoughts of the other editiors. I only knew they objected to the absence of criticism. Not the same thing at all--except that obviously you wish there were no criticism in the article and wish to exclude anything other than full acceptance of white privilege as an uncontested fact. Apostle12 (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

In Europe

This is Wikipedia English (leaning to America), In Europe not everyone speaks English, so there will be other words for WP. Most books published on these types of topics are from America, so there is no way you can match America on topics such as race and WP. I am sure WP is rife in Kenya, but will we find the poor Kenyan farmer publishing treaties on the effects of WP on his social-development potential?-- I think not. Anyway the section has been started, poorly, but I started it to encourage others to contribute. It is outside of my abilities to write about Europe esp due to language barrier. --Inayity (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In Europe not everyone speaks English, so there will be other words for WP.Source please-is there any "white privilege" in Moldavia for example ?--Questionentity (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, everyone in Europe does not speak English and they have their own way of articulating WP, where it exist. WP is unique to multi-racial societies, i.e. there must be a significant Ethnic minority (Germany, UK, France, Dutch, etc). so I dont think they will be discussing WP in the villages of the Swiss Alps.--Inayity (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Since majority of countries with white people don't have significant non-white minorities will you be ok with stating that the theory of white privilege doesn't concern most countries with white population but only a few?

--Questionentity (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

' Since majority of countries with white people don't have significant non-white minorities ' Really? Do you have a source for that? Note that significance != numerical proportion. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the link used in the lead a Reliable Source? Looks like no-longer maintained private page hosted on university server, not published by university at all

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/whiteness05.htm academic.udayton.edu

Is used in the first sentence in the lead. However if you go to the page you will see that it is no longer maintained and was moved to some other website, outside of university servers. Also by the looks of it it seems to be a private project by either student or teacher.--Questionentity (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You make 'no longer maintained' sound negative. Every out of print book is 'no longer maintained' and no, that makes neither this page nor out of print books necessarily unreliable. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Even so, it is less than ideal that the only reference we have now for the sentence in question is a dead link, and without a title finding another link with the same material will not be as easy as it might have been. (Even the Wayback Machine cannot help with this one.) Let's hope we learn something from this experience about the hazards of making a citation consist of nothing more than a bare URL. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Let us not revisit battles

Alleged Mitagatory Language. It seems (how I don't want to speculate) some people are hell bent on inserting a tone that cast doubt over the existence of WP.(its all in our heads) I will not waste time repeating the prolong contents of the discussion i have made ref to. In any event, Wikipedia does not need that language. Some people deny racism, and antisemitism the tone never says "some people think antisemitism is a problem"--Inayity (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your idea of "not revisiting battles" seems to be "Just get out of my way and don't bother me about compromising." "White privilege" is an idea. Within critical race theory it is an accepted idea. Outside of that field, it is not an accepted idea. To compare this to denying racism or denying antisemitism is to distract from the need to include various perspectives in the article. Your perspective has a place in the article. So do the perspectives of others.

By the way, the lede just keeps looking worse - a terrible jumble of nearly incoherent verbiage. Apostle12 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Example: Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is (fact for most people) suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage. A person who holds such views is called an "antisemite".(according to ref and popular usage)

Is Antisemitism a ^{[citation needed]} for everyone? No, some deny it. Does the entire world embrace the term? Obviously not, I am sure no one in Iran cares for it. But do we insert According to Some Antisemtism is against Jews?. Do we add worldview tags because it is really limited to certain areas of the world? No. Wikipedia reports on a term in its own space, WP is used enough to outweigh any hint that it is a. a social theory for some academics only, b. maybe, maybe not in existence. (I am sure there are other examples).--Inayity (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking to yourself...or should I say "muttering?" Apostle12 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am since seasoned wiki users are above talk page--Inayity (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(out)So what exactly is wrong with this edit[8]? How is in incorrect? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Inayity-if you want to debate Anti-semitism take it to its page and don't do it here. As to your starting comment, it is obvious that you are not neutral here and are advocating this theory as fact. In fact you are violating this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[2] Even sources that are used in this article and support the theory of white privilege(despite the fact that most white people in the world have barely anything in common with each other besides colour of their skin, and often live below the level of wealth in many Asian countries), even then-they admit that this a hypothesis or a theory. If you see this article as something that should propagate "truth" or correct the world-you are not realizing that this is not the purpose of wikipedia. --Questionentity (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Questionentity plese read WP:INDENT "It is said to accrue to very wide sections (indeed, even to majorities) of the population, as in the notion of “white privilege”"^[1] Darkness Shines (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Darkness It is wrong b/c Wikipedia has a process. That process of agreeing on the lede is unresolved. You as a sole editor cannot resolve it. I have far greater issues with your failure to use the talk page and to cause an edit war to ensue, than the actual edit your made. And it is precisely why you do not alter a lead on contentious issues. You did not use the talk page, you revisited a controversial edit which was the source of a exhausting debate between several editors(which is still not resolved). I suspect you did the edit without understanding the talk page history.--Inayity (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The edit looks fine. Why was it reverted? "take it to the Talk page" is never a good reason. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"that white people enjoy in many societies"

That white people enjoy in many societies-this is not sourced and in fact incorrect as the text shows, there are 204 states, article mentions USA, Australia a South Africa. If there is no opposition to this, I will remove the sentence as it A-unsupported by any source, B-false. Comments welcomed-but do remember to back them up with sources. --Questionentity (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that although you are not obviously violating WP:3RR, you are edit warring. Please see WP:WIP. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. I will not do it immediately. Now-do you have something against removing this unsourced and false sentence?

--Questionentity (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There is substantial discussion about the issues you raise here on the talk page. I would encourage you to review it. I have posted at The Administrator's Noticeboard because I believe you to be edit warring. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no discussion regarding this unsourced part. Therefore I have started it. Do you have any source confirming that is widespread among many societies? If not, in view of the fact that 204 states exist, and only 3 are mentioned I propose to remove this false statement. If you have issues not concerning this topic, please address them elsewhere, while reserving this space for discussion on this unsourced claim and the need to back it up with something that is reliable source. --Questionentity (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The terms society[9] and state[10] are not synonymous. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Might be, but number of societies in 200 states will be greater than number in 4, and in any case the claim "many societies" still isn't supported by any source, isn't it? --Questionentity (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

How many societies are there? How many would need to have scholarship on this concept in order to say "many"? How might we phrase something that does not risk excluding societies where there is scholarship on this idea that we as editors are simply unaware of, which is a possibility with using a simple list? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

So you have no source confirming this claim? --Questionentity (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

there is no need for such hostility. I am trying to discern the reasons for your insistent objections.

If there is literature, for instance, on white privilege in former colonies of Spain, must we have a citation for every individual country before saying "in former colonies of Spain"? And what about colonies that changed hands over time? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no hostility, I asked for a source confirming the claim. You haven't provided one, and it seems you don't have it. Once we will have literature on white privilege theory in former Spanish colonies we can debate that in separate thread. Since there is no source for the claim, I see no reason to keep it. --Questionentity (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This does not seem like meaningful ~~communication~~ conversation, which requires communication of values and needs, not simply making demands. I will be back in a couple of days after you have cooled down. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is quite straightforward-a claim exists in the article, that has no source. As per Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.[2](...)Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. I am completely cool, so I don't know where your comment comes from. I hope that after your return you will be able to provide a reliable source supporting the claim, otherwise it will have to be removed per wikipedia rules. I am not making demands besides those required by wikipedia. --Questionentity (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

BURDEN does not imply that any issue (if there is one) must be dealt with instantly, or even within a month. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not it doesn't imply a time limit, but it does imply a need to provide a source. Which I hope will be provided, otherwise the sentence needs to go as unsourced. And it will of course be tagged as one-perfectly in line with Wiki rules and guidelines.--Questionentity (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The article already includes references that say that white privilege exists in the US, that white privilege exists in Australia, that white privilege exists in Brazil, and that white privilege is a global phenomenon. Can you think of a better way to summarize this in the lead? Perhaps incidentally, one reason I favored the inclusion of the phrase "in many socities" is that I felt that without it readers would assume that it exists in every single society on the planet, and we do not have sources to support that. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Questionentity does have a point. You require a secondary source for the claim in the lead which doesn't seem to be supported by any of the existing references. Currently it's a SYNTH. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

SYNTH certainly does not apply here. I am sure the sentence can be phrased better, but let us not get carried away and suggest it is an invalid statement. There is certainly no global Black Privilege, the dominant race-culture is White. Even in Africa White skin is the ultimate beauty standard. WP exist with absolute certainty in most societies where Whites are a minority or a majority (like South Africa and Kenya). And this fine focus on what is obvious I believe is an attempt to reject what is real to most non-White people of the planet. It is almost like saying there is no more racism.--Inayity (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a synth as Wolfie says. Also I do not think the white folks in Zim would agree with your statement above. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the Talk page. Have you been to Zimbabwe or you reading the highlights that come out on CNN? B/c no victim of WP living in Zim would make that statement. Luckily I might b the only African based editor in this debate. So there are All White places in Zim right now, all the supermarkets are White owned, the chain stores White SA, didnt they tell you that on CNN? That farm land is not the only area of white domination in Africa? 80% of Namibia is owned by Whites. Dont worry the references are coming. --Inayity (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I already commented above over the edit you complained about, can't help but notice you ignored the reference given to support the edit. As for Zim, don't make me laughAfter an 11-year struggle in which their ranks have been murdered, beaten, jailed and bankrupted, the last of Zimbabwe's white farmers are finally facing defeat in their efforts to resist President Robert Mugabe's land-grab programme. Ya, those guys are real privileged. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, have you ever been to Zimbabwe? Do you live in Africa? So the assumption is you know African reality better than the person living there. Its cool, cuz this article is all about that attitude. WP allows Whites to dominant news and write the world as they see it.[11]. Now When Mandela and Zuma complain about WP, they must be making you laugh. Let us return to the sentence in question cuz me and you have nothing else on this topic to discuss.

Sure, as soon as you find a decent source. I mean, Authorhouse, really? Read WP:SPS Darkness Shines (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

the dominant race-culture is White. You might want stop judging people by the colour of their skin. There is little in common between a Belarussian and French person, and I don't think that Belarussian or Moldovan culture enjoys a dominant position in the world, compared lets say to Japanese culture. The bottom line is that you need a source to claim such things. Also I really wish you would start to say Germans,British, French, Russians, Italians, Poles instead of "whites" as if they are one giant uniform group.

--Questionentity (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not been to Zimbabwe, but I can tell you about Ethiopia. The idea of playing off ethnic groups against one another is considered reprehensible in traditional 20th century Ethiopian thought, rather the emphasis is on promoting unity, peace and respect among members of all races as equals, especially when the Ethiopian Constitution guaranteed "all persons are equally protected by law" and "with regard to benefitting from civil rights, let no differences in race, tribe, language or religion come between citizens". This constitutional principal states that blacks and whites enjoy the same legal rights and privileges by the laws of man, as they are already equally loved in the eyes of God. Hegelian dialectic by contrast, works explicitly through fomenting divisiveness - writing hundreds of books about the inferiority complexes some people have. The result is leaders like Mengistu who took it out on millions of his compatriots. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Can people stop with the appeals to You're not African so you can't disagree type reasoning. Anyone can edit an article talk page, and it's borderline xenophobic to dismiss your opponents merely for being born on a different continent than the one under discussion. People are trying to advance their own personal beliefs in the absence of sources. "The references are coming" isn't good enough; you are asserting things already without seeing them, so I expect to see cherry picked sources to match that conclusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2629192&page=2#.UM2YzdE6fOc. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I really wasnt sure what to do about this, it was indented but not blockquoted and not referenced. It also makes up a substantial bit of the article. There is little guidance on copyvios on talk pages that i could find, but there are warnings not to even put them on your sandbox pages etc. just trying to be diligent about this. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Though I would never include Steele's full statement in the article, its use here on talk seems legitimate. Are you sure your "diligence" is not an attempt inappropriately to limit this discussion? Apostle12 (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite sure, thanks. The quoted text was the majority of the text at the listed URL. There are no hard and fast rules, only guidelines, but legally, I don't think fair use or fair dealing would allow such a substantial reproduction of non-free non-CC-BY-SA-compatible content. a link would have been better. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, see WP:QUOTE and WP:MOSQUOTE for reference (though they are linked above in the copyright template notice) -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If you object to my not using blockquotes, then please add blockquotes. If my reference was too oblique, please clarify it. For the record, we are discussing what Steele actually said, so including what he said in this discussion, rather than using a link, seems entirely appropriate. By my word count, the section I quoted constituted about 26% of the article. Apostle12 (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't edit other people's comments, as a rule. I don't even edit my own comments on talk pages, consistent with WP:STRIKE. Even if the extensive quotation was in fact quoted and referenced, it was substantial enough to question whether it would have qualified as a copyvio. Please review the relevant policies, which I have pointed you to upthread. If you wish to discuss this with me further, I would appreciate it if you would do so at one of our personal talk pages, as I feel discussion on the talk page about the talk page does not help appreciably with the construction of the article.

I removed the paragraph because I felt it violated WP:UNDUE, especially since the "limitations" section makes no mention of Mr. Steele, nor does it mention his criticisms directly. My intent is to summarize those criticisms as succinctly as I can and add them back to the lede. The paragraph that was removed was even more substantial than the only other mention of Mr. Steele in the article. Thus, that paragraph did not summarize the article as a whole, and gave undue weight to one particular person's opinion. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Important sociological concept

Despite the mild edit war that has plagued this page, there is ample research on the concept of white privilege and the phenomenon does exist and is an important concept in race relations both on national and international scales. Meclee (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, an important sociological concept that has its critics and detractors. The current editors give undue weight to supporters of the concept and its relative importance in race relations. Apostle12 (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have grounds for saying that the article gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, please let us know, so that we can improve the article. Taking the top 20 Google Scholar results for "white privilege" into consideration, 95% present white privilege as something that exists (and keep in mind that might have been 100%, were there not one paper with an unavailable abstract). If we give weight to these results according to the number of times they have been cited, the percentage becomes 97.86% (again, that might have been 100%). Despite this more than 10% of the current article is devoted to criticism of the view that white privilege exists (and keep in mind that what is left includes definitions and headings). This suggests to me that the current article gives too much weight in the opposite direction. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

New lead proposal

I would like to propose a new lead.

The term mostly used in North America and English-speaking countries with histories of racial stratification after colonialism, such as South Africa[4] and Australia.[5] It generalizes people based on the criteria of their white skin colour into one group, disregarding their ethnic differences and alleges that they enjoy advantages beyond those commonly experienced by people of other skin color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc)

Comments are welcome.--Questionentity (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's horrid, since it doesn't mention the meaning or academic background of the term. Also, South Africa is not well characterised as 'English speaking'. Aside: please read WP:INDENT. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Respect your efforts, however the above is neither well-conceived nor well-written. Apostle12 (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the lede as they appeared on November 18, 2012. In my opinion a much more balanced approach. Comments also welcome.

Within the academic discipline of critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from their position in society as on the societal disadvantages that people of color experience. White privilege may be defined as the "unearned advantages of being white in a racially stratified society", and white privilege is seen as a powerful legacy of racial identity that is often unacknowledged by whites. Much of the English-language scholarship on white privilege focuses on American and European societal conditions, since inequality between whites and non-whites is a long-standing feature in these societies. However, white privilege may be seen as existing to some extent wherever the dominant culture is white, as in countries with legacies of colonialism such as South Africa and Australia.

White privilege differs from overt racism or prejudice, where a dominant group actively seeks to oppress or suppress other racial groups for its own advantage. Instead, theories of white privilege suggest that whites view their social, cultural, and economic experiences as a norm that everyone should experience, rather than as an advantaged position that is maintained at the expense of people of color. Scholars of critical race theory argue that this normative assumption constrains discussions of racial inequality: explanations of racial inequality are limited to factors specific to disadvantaged groups comprising people of color, who are viewed as having failed to achieve the norm. Thus solutions focus on what can be done to help people of color achieve the 'normal' standards experienced by whites.

Apostle12 (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good start. I think it characterizes white privilege as it is discussed in the United States well. However, I think we should also include a more global perspective. Specifically, a search of "Lexis Nexis" for news articles mentioning "white privilege" brings up many hits from African newspapers. The term comes up particularly in South African, Zimbabwean and Namibian papers. In this context, white privilege refers to white minority rule, to businesses that only cater to whites, and to continued wealth concentration among the white minority (albeit with the emergence of black middle and upper classes), in contrast to continued poverty among a large portion of the black population. I'll look for some good sources on this to broaden the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What is very important is to underline in the lead(and what is confirmed by sources) that the term is used primarily in USA and countries with colonist past. At this time the article is too generalizing and readers can get the impression that this a universal concept for all countries where people white white skin live(for example Belarus, or Latvia) which would be absurd. We already have a source confirming the use mostly in USA and other specific countries, and I don't think it would be hard to shape a sentence that informs the readers of the area where the theory is mostly proposed.

--Questionentity (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should adopt Apostle12's proposed language in the article. We can work from there, as it forms a more neutral basis than what appears in the article now. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what you think "neutrality" means in the context of this article? In my opinion, the current lede is relatively neutral because:

It explains what people mean, in concrete terms, what they use the phrase "white privilege". It bases this meaning primarily on Peggy McIntosh's essay, which is cited in thousands of academic works and mentioned as a key essay in the field.
It identifies some of the academic and geographic domains in which the term is most applicable.
It identifies multiple different criticisms of the terms and its users. In fact it probably discusses the criticisms disproportionately, but this doesn't bother me and some editors here seem to feel strongly about it.

The old lede, which you and Apostle12 are proposing to restore, does not create a clear picture of what people mean when they say "white privilege", nor does it seem to be based on any particular sources. It discusses proposed "solutions" to white privilege, as conjectured by unknown users of the term. And it does not contain any discussion of the criticism! So I have to say that at this point I am actually confused about how you want the article to look, and how you want it to expand. If what you really want is more limiting language—not "white privilege refers...", but "white privilege is supposed to refer..." or "some bleeding hearts use 'white privilege' to refer..."—then say so and we'll talk about that.

I was similarly confused by your comments on December 6 in response to my reorganization of the article. You wrote that I moved something further down, thereby obscuring the connection between "white privilege" and "critical race theory" (never mind that this connection is both not essential and mentioned in the lede anyway!!) but ignored that I added a fairly extensive "Limitations" section which made abundant use of the critical article by Eric Arnesen which you posted.

So again, please be more specific about the type of neutrality you are seeking. I believe that it has recently moved towards both a neutral and a global point of view. I also believe that this article will be much better if we can work collaboratively, and I am really looking forward to your scholarly contributions. Peace on Earth, groupuscule (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest something radical? How about if we follow WP:LEDE and write a lede that summarizes the article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoah there, Tiger. Next thing you know you will be recommending that we base the article on reliable, independently verifiable sources. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Groupiscule, I believe your addition of a "Limitations" section was appropriate, though how this differs from a "Criticisms" section, and the objections to same, is not clear to me.

I also believe the discussion of criticisms in the final paragraph of the lede is appropriate. My suggestion was to restore the first two paragraphs of the lede as they appeared on November 18 (as noted above), followed by the third paragraph as it appears today.

Conservative critics of the "white privilege" concept such as Shelby Steele have argued that white people do not benefit from unfair advantages and may even be victims of institutionalized racism since minority groups benefit from race-based affirmative action programs and other special advantages.[6] Some left-wing critics have argued that that white privilege is less significant than class privilege. In academic circles, the concept of white privilege has been critiqued on the grounds that whiteness is not a discrete identity with properties that apply to all white people.

Can the first two paragraphs (circa November 18) be improved so that they summarize the article, as per Malik Shabazz's suggestion? Yes, I think so. Are the current editors willing to tackle this task with a willingness to creating an accurate, well-sourced NPOV article? Apostle12 (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Groupuscule, the most glaring problem with the current lede is that it states the concept of white privilege as fact:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to advantages that white people enjoy in many societies beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc). It sometimes connotes unspoken advantages, which white people may not realize they have. These include cultural affirmations of one's own worth, greater presumed social status, and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely.

This reads like a statement of fact, but really describes a view within academia, which has more recently found some general use. It is not universally, or even overwhelmingly accepted within academia, or within the broader public. It is presented, however, from a partisan point of view. The lede which Apostle12 has proposed gives a similar description of the concept, but does not go so far as to say that the concept is correct. This is why it is more neutral, even absent the explicit discussion of criticism of the term. I would be open to some mention of criticism of the term in the lede, but I think the proposed language is a better starting point than what we have right now.

It is my understanding that the use of sources within the lede is considered bad style. The proposed lede does, I think, summarize the main points of the article. For example, the article discusses, albeit inadequately at present, the origins of the term "white privilege" in critical race theory and whiteness theory. Apostle12's proposed lede is also better written, in my view, than what we currently have. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I actually feel like the section in the lede about Shelby Steele, etc, is in danger of violating the spirit, if not the policy, of WP:UNDUE. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

So you have simply eliminated the paragraph wholesale, with no discussion whatever? Not even a suggestion of what might be more appropriate? How typically high-handed! Apostle12 (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

groupuscule, here are a few of thoughts on the lead and the "Limitations" secton:

The third paragraph of the current lead is easily the most expendable. This is not simply a matter of weight. The citation does not support the claim (the Steele citation has somehow been lost), and in fact Steele never said that white privilege does not exist only that it has been exaggerated (the body gets this right).
The "Limitations" section is about limations on/of what exactly? It is implicitly about the limitations on/of white privilege, but that is not what the section is about.
Did Arnesen explicitly make a link between his historical viewpoint and white privilege? (I have not paid to see the article, so I cannot find out for myself.) If not, this is original synthesis.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And I thought the inclusion of the third paragraph, and its continued existence, indicated a willingness on your part for the article to move in the direction of NPOV; suppose I should have known better.

I assume "Limitations" refers to the limited relevance, accuracy, truth of the "white privilege" concept.Apostle12 (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the now-eliminated (courtesy of UsetheCommandLine) third paragraph never said "white privilege does not exist" - that is your straw man. Here is what Steele actually said:

(accessible here: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2629192&page=2#.UM2YzdE6fOc)

--(substantial quoting from copyrighted source snipped, see below UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)) --

The third paragraph summarized Steele's statements as follows, "Conservative critics of the 'white privilege' concept such as Shelby Steele have argued that white people do not benefit from unfair advantages and may even be victims of institutionalized racism since minority groups benefit from race-based affirmative action programs and other special advantages." We can argue whether or not this is a perfect representation of Steele's position, however I see no valid excuse for wholesale elimination of this perspective from the lede.

This extreme approach is why I am no longer participating in editing the article. Apostle12 (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

So the article does contain the relevant quote. Thank you; I do not not know how I missed that. Anyway, "white privilege" is often defined as "the unearned advantages that white people have". By this definition saying, "White people do not benefit from unfair advantages," in this context is tantamount to saying that white privilege does not exist. Even if it weren't, Steele never said that. There is no attempt to build a straw man or be extreme. Finally, please note that I did not delete the third paragraph. If I must be mistaken for someone, I am glad it is UseTheCommandLine, whose good faith attempts to maintain and improve this article I can appreciate, even when I would take a different approach. But I would much prefer not being treated as interchangeable with him and more generally that you not make this personal. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The "World News" article references Steele as saying that Tim Wise (who lectures on the problem of white privilege) "has it wrong...that it's not white privilege that shuts blacks out." The article goes on to quote Steele directly, who insists that "white privilege is not a problem," that it is "black irresponsibility...high illegitimacy and high school drop-out rates (that) are limiting black progress." Steele continues, "Racism is about 18th on a list of problems that black America faces...There's black irresponsibility today, there's a lot of that. It's a bigger problem than racism." Then the article quotes Steele as saying that there is "minority privilege."

I clearly acknowledged that it was UsetheCommandLine, not you, who deleted the entire paragraph. However, you called the paragraph "expendable" and clearly support this wholesale deletion. Neither you and nor UsetheCommandLine made any attempt to edit the third paragraph of the lede to create a more perfect representation of Steele's position. I do consider this "extreme" - to wit an unwillingness to allow the article to move in the direction of NPOV. If in your view my use of the word "extreme" constitutes a personal attack (I do not view it as such) so be it.

I see every indication that you, MarieParadox and UsetheCommandLine, are attempting to WP:OWN this article rather than working with other editors who wish to include legitimate perspectives with which you disagree. I must object to this "intransigence," which is also not a personal attack. When you cease your intransigence, I will stop objecting. Apostle12 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I and others have raised the issue of the lede's characterization of white privilege as fact several times. One response has been that there are no sources which disagree with the idea of white privilege, and another has been that the lede should reflect what is in the article - and previous versions have had little criticism of the term. As to the first point, we now have a number of well respected scholars in their fields who dispute that white privilege exists, and argue that whiteness is not a useful category of historical analysis. As to the second point, the article at least mentions these differing views now. I therefore thin k it is time that we revisit the lede. In particular, the statement that "White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to advantages that white people enjoy in many societies beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc)" is too strong for us to make. I think the lede proposed by Apostle12 earlier in this section gives readers a better idea of what the concept is, and should be the basis from which we work. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this might be time to revisit WP:DRN, the continuous focus on the lede is frankly, a little ridiculous. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thucydides is right, the POV is too strong in the lead. Far too many readers will find themselves unable to agree from the very first sentence and will immediately realize that this is one of those articles pushing some polemical mindtrip. But that will never be what "neutrality" means in English. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ownership of the "White privilege" article

As usual, the edits today (December 21, 2012) show the unending insistence of Marie Paradox to exert ownership of this article through systematic deletion of anything she disagrees with. There was no "undue emphasis" (except perhaps in Maria Paradox's mind) and "synthesis" was also notably absent.

Another editor's hard work (not mine, since I find the constant reversions of the Maria Paradox/UsetheCommandLine tag team much too discouraging) has been destroyed, with no discussion or analysis to legitimize this action.

Also, the title change is completely inappropriate. Citing limitations to the universal applicability of the "white privilege" concept is not the same as saying that it does not exist. Apostle12 (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with calling the section "Limitations" is that according to the MOS section on subject headings "headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated". But the "Criticism"/"Limitations" section is not about limitations on white privilege. A limitation on white privilege would be something like a law that prohibited giving unearned advantages to white people. The section is instead a collection of arguments against (a) particular view(s) of white privilege. If you or any other editor have a better idea for a title, please use that instead. I would be content with pretty much any title that does not run afoul of the MOS or Wikipedia policy.

BTW please avoid making discussion on this page about individuals, when it should be about how to improve the article.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:OWNERS: This article makes a TRAVESTY of the concept 'neutral', it is opinionated hogwash taking select POV sources as factual

This article still suffers severe WP:OWN issues from a very few users. It would obviously be against the interest of these few users to call a wider RfC on these neutrality issues, because the more new editors read this article, the more oppose the blatant opinions and P.O.V. that this article is pushing. It would be more in the interests of these "OWNERS" to keep this article as quiet as possible, until they can get some friendly, "authoritative"-sounding body to "rule" that editor consensus is wrong - but wikipedia, being largely transparent and accessible to everyone, doesn't lend itself very well to that kind of procedure. They would apparently rather sit there and hold their breath waiting for all their critics to suddenly disappear, or for voicing all dissent to be banned. Don't hold your breath little ones, this issue isn't going ANYWHERE until neutrality is resolved in a satisfactory manner, and until then it will remain right there on your doorstep, as more and more editors slowly discover this article.

An article is "neutral" when anyone involved in the controversy it describes from any angle can read it, without feeling like they are reading an attack piece.

A polemical article that's sole purpose is set up to attack or disparage an arbitrary group of people (using its own contrived and short-sighted definitions of who the members of this "group" are, no less) is not neutral by any HONEST definition of the word "neutral". Indeed, it is the very type of skin-color based discrimination that the entire world could do without, let alone wikipedia enshrining it as "factual". 71.127.139.4 (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This appears to me to be a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Furthermore, and perhaps more distressingly, it appears to threaten additional WP:CAN violations. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There have been no WP:CAN violations, and this contributor, while not particularly articulate, never threatens "additional" violations; your accusation is unfounded. By the way, I have never received a clear apology regarding your accusation of my "sockpuppetry." Is your apology still forthcoming, as you promised? Or are you still waiting for the results of your inquiry? Apostle12 (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have posted at WP:ANI about this comment. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You really are afraid of an RfC? I don't think you even know what a WP:CAN violation is. That's just one of the hypocritical games you blatanty play to keep this article from a wider audience. But it's kind of a catch 22 there, because if you keep it from a wider audience, then what's the point of having it? Just for the people who agree with its POINT OF VIEW to read? Rather than the slightest bit of compromise, your solution to any disagreement has consistently been "Seek to have all those who disagree forcibly and mercilessly removed from the equation." That will not truly solve or "make the problem go away", that will only make the problem eventually snowball. Problems like this don't REALLY go away unless a neutrally worded compromise is reached that is acceptable from all points of view to describe the topic impartially. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC posted -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, UseTheCommandLine. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Avoid Critique sections under New names

Whatever we do, let me recall the earlier post I made some months ago about Criticism sections. Which the one I tagged is becoming. Even when we discuss problems with the term. There must be some balance. That section has none. therefore NPOV is being violated. And it is a Criticism section with a different name:

Criticism, Controversy or similarly-titled sections that segregate a series of negative details into one section.Note that criticism and controversy sections are not prohibited by policy, and the tag should only be used if there is a real concern that the criticism section and its contents are causing trouble with the article's neutrality.--Inayity (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The article's "neutrality" is certainly not threatened by the rather oblique entries that editor Marie Paradox has allowed to remain, whatever this section is called. Deletions of pointed comments by noted author Shelby Steele, along with additional deletions today, effectively silence some of the most cogent critics of the "white privilege" concept.

Renaming the section seems particularly inappropriate, given that the entries hardly claim that "white privilege" does not exist; rather they encourage a more nuanced point of view than Marie Paradox/UsetheCommandLine are comfortable with. "Limitations" was thus a more appropriate title, and it should be reinstated.

I note that "criticism or controversy sections are not prohibited by policy;" you previously claimed they were. Apostle12 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that an unnamed editor 71.127.139.4 has restored the name of this section along with the deleted material. I believe that is appropriate, though I cannot endorse the tone of his comments. Apostle12 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of "Criticism"/"Limitations" Section

71.127.139.4, could you explain why you reverted my edits to the "Limitations"/"Criticism" section? On the face of it use of a paper that does not even use the term "white privilege" (as is the case with Arnesen's paper) is original synthesis. I first pointed out the synthesis problem five days ago, and neither you nor any editor made a defense of its continued inclusion. Similarly, I argued four days ago that the article was giving undue weight to criticism, and again neither you nor any other editor made a defense of its continued inclusion. Even so, when I made edits in accordance with my previous criticism, you reverted them, and instead of arguing that the reinserted material was not original synthesis and not giving undue weight you made what appear to me to be personal attacks. I will be removing the problematic content again. Before reverting it again please keep in mind that BRD cannot happen without the D, and please remember to avoid making discussion on this page about individuals when it should be about improving the article. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a reasonable interpretation would be that everyone appears to be discussing the lede, and so if it's mentioned in one of those wide-ranging discussion threads it might get missed. I missed your objection to it as OS myself, and because i didn't see it, didn't make any effort to dig into it.

I don't know that the explicit use of the term "white privilege" should be a prerequisite for a source's inclusion, if for no other reason than that limits the scope of the concept to english-speaking countries, but i do understand your point. And since this has been brought up in a separate section i am now prompted to look at the source at issue. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I also missed your mention of the synthesis issue, however when I checked one of the items you deleted, the sources seemed clearly relevant with explicit mention of the "white privilege" concept. I have not checked every source for every item you deleted - are all available online? In any case, before you revert again, I think a thorough discussion of the "synthesis" and "undue emphasis" issues should happen here on Talk, with some attempt to arrive at consensus.

By the way, I may soon return to editing this article. I am reading Shelby Steele's recent book WHITE GUILT: HOW BLACKS AND WHITES TOGETHER DESTROYED THE PROMISE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ERA, and he has a lot to say about the "white privilege" concept. This, in addition to his comments on John Stossel's 20/20 program (which you deleted), need to be explicitly contrasted with the views of those who believe that the "white privilege" issue is central to race relations. Steele believes this puts the burden unfairly on "white folks" to somehow "give up" their supposed "privileges," which according to Peggy McIntosh in her "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" essay, they may not even be aware of. Steele, and most other notable conservatives, see continuing problems in race relations quite differently. More soon. Apostle12 (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please post this under a separate heading, in order to avoid the very problems we just discussed -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Apostle12 (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed, Marie Paradox, that you are engaging in edit warring with 71.127.139.4. I am returning to editing sooner than I planned, however I believe it is imperative that the discussion take place HERE, before you delete this material. You asked some questions. Please wait to allow time for other editors to answer. There is no pressing need to delete the material, so it is essential to engage appropriately; we have the time. Apostle12 (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I await your response. In the meantime assumption of good faith on your part would be appreciated. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Arnesen's article, and the series that followed it, are very useful sources for this article, as they directly address the foundational works of whiteness theory, with Roediger's The Wages of Whiteness coming under particular scrutiny. White privilege is perhaps the central concept in whiteness theory. Its inclusion is not original research. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Evolution is the central concept in biology (much as you claim white privilege is a central concept in whiteness theory). Does this mean we would be justified in including critiques of the foundational works of biology in the article on biological evolution? I think the answer most in line with Wikipedia's policy is, "Not unless a non-trivial number of relevant authorities explicitly tells us we can." Similarly, I would suggest that the Arnesen citations as they are currently included leave too much dot-connecting to the editors and readers.

Just to be sure we are on the same page I do not dispute that Arnesen's work is in some sense "not original research". The problem, as I see it, is that we have been synthesizing ideas in ways that go beyond what Arnesen has said in the cited sources.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Apostle12's return to editing, and RfC/U

Hi,

Because Apostle12 has returned to editing the article itself (rather than limit him or herself to the talk page) I have created an RfC/U based on what I feel are problematic examples of his or her previous behavior, that I feel have yet to be resolved. This is in regards to Apostle12's activity over the last two months, largely, but may also involve a longer history with some editors.

Comment is welcome at the RfC page

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I welcome this RfC/U as I believe it is connected to significant problems with WP:OWN on the part of editors UsetheCommandLine and Marie Paradox, who seem to act as a tag team for the purpose of discouraging the inclusion of cogent criticism of the "white privilege" concept in this article. I would also welcome comment at the RfC page.

Apostle12 (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits to the Australia section, re:sources

in reference to ~~this source~~ sorry, this source, the journal looks to me like a peer-reviewed publication (see here), and not self-published, as asserted by WLRoss. I have removed the tag, but also think some of the commentary included as inline comments would be better as a discussion here on the talk page. I have removed them from the article, and begun discussions here, below. This section, I think, should be for discussion of the ACRAWSA e-journal as a source -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC). Additional inline commentary, also removed from the article and placed here for discussion purposes:

The reference is a case study demonstrating "racism and the devaluing of Indigenous people...by non-Indigenous...academics" that uses a single persons experience as the sole example, that person being the author of the study. Requires more sources in support or deletion.

I know it is not self published in regards to it being an acrawsa publication but the entire study is the authors personal experience. She is in effect self publishing with a non-neutral view and COI. I know of "white" people with degrees in Indigenous studies who have accepted offers of similar work under similar conditions and in my state at least it's possibly an industry norm regardless of colour. The claim requires additional sources to support a difference in treatment. Wayne (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I could see it going either way, actually. I believe we allow ethnographic sources, but some of these are simply one person's experience. If that is published in a reputable peer reviewed journal that is considered an acceptable source. OTOH, if this were a medical context, this would be equivalent to a case report, and the peer review process alone would not make it worthy of consideration. (In the latter case, there are stricter MEDRS standards than the more general RS standards.) I guess what my question would be is, is it the peer review process that makes something like this worthy of inclusion, or do the specifics of the article make it non-RS? I think we might wind up having to ask on WP:RSN, though that doesnt offer a timely solution. I will poke around the policies for examples, and would invite you to do the same, if you have the time or inclination. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

posted -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Australia, synthesis, inline comment

Reference acknowledges that academia has inclusionist policies and that Indigenous people have preferential employment. "controlled by white people" and "hires many white professors" is a result of a lack of qualified applicants rather than any descriminatory policy or actions. This requires rewording for neutrality or deletion.

put here for further comment. I think the acknowedgement of the lack of "qualified aplicants" does not disqualify this from being an accurate portrayal of white privilege in this context. It seems perfectly consistent with other references that suggest that white privilege can exist in the absence of active discrimination or racism, or even in concert with efforts towards multiculturalism. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The key word is neutrality. The current wording lacks context and implies that the hiring of white professors and universities being controlled by white people is a conscious or subconscious act which is not the case. Only 0.7% of Australian school teachers are Indigenous which highlights the lack of applicants. Wayne (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the current wording implies conscious action necessarily. Is there a way we can express this trend without shutting out the possibility that this may be due to unconscious or systemic bias, which is sort of the counterpart of the article topic? I do not have a better wording to offer at the moment. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that an article written by someone with firsthand experience in the area—but then also citing dozens of sources and subject to peer review—would be one of the most highly prized sources on a topic. Wayne: maybe you could contribute to the article by doing some research on "white privilege" in Australia. Just do a search somewhere for "white privilege Australia" and see what comes up. Maybe there are, for example, systemic aspects of education in Australia that contribute to the "lack of qualified applicants". It is typically not done to 'flag' a peer reviewed journal article as insufficient evidence because you personally disagree with its conclusions. Peace. groupuscule (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the lack of qualified applicants is largely a result of the low rate of schooling but that is a cultural issue not white privilege. If the author cites "dozens of sources" then they should be used instead of one with a COI. Wayne (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

We cannot just include every person's allegations of racism in the article. The paper [12] which was cited in the section on Australia, alleging deliberate exclusion of aborigines from Indigenous Studies departments in Australia, is no basis for making as broad a claim as "Indigenous Studies in Australian Universities remains controlled by white people, hires many white professors, and does not always embrace political changes that benefit indigenous people or respect their sovereignty." The paper by Bronwyn Fredericks appears to be a long complaint against an Australian university, which had invited her to take part in a curriculum review but which refused to offer compensation. Fredericks has a right to draw her conclusions from this dispute, and others may agree or disagree with her, but it is another thing for Wikipedia to repeat her allegations of racism in the academy in an authoritative voice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why "white privilege" cannot also be "a cultural issue." I also don't think that this can be classified as a CoI. -- ~~

White privilege can be a cultural issue but a low rate of schooling is a cultural issue separate from the white privilege concept. Wayne (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we might be getting a bit too far into a discussion about the topic itself, but i could imagine that appropriate access to schooling could be a "white privilege" issue. Would be happy to continue the discussion on one of our personal talk pages.-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The following disturbing line has been inserted into the article by groupuscule:

"White (Western) epistemology and pedagogy are treated as universal while Indigenous perspectives are excluded or treated only as objects of study."

What are "white epistemology and pedagogy"? Is there a "black epistemology" or an "Indigenous epistemology"? This seems to me a racist assertion -- ones views on epistemology do not follow invariably from ones race. I'm going to remove this statement. We cannot phrase an assertion like this factually. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

If you find this claim confusing or ambiguous, why not read the four sources cited to support it, and then expand the claim based on the information you find? Given all that is written about white privilege in Australian education, as well as the example of the USA subsection, we could definitely create a new subsection on this topic. I look forward to your interpretation. Merry Christmas, groupuscule (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

These claims, if they merit inclusion, should be written in an objective tone. This is a very general problem with the article. We also need to be careful not to endorse racist views in the article. We certainly should not be writing the article from an assumption that there exists a "white epistemology." -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I tried to strike a more acceptable-to-critics neutral tone in the sentence at issue, meaning adding hedging language. I do think that there is not quite as great a need for conciseness in the larger article as there is in the lede, so we can afford to explain or expand a little bit. The need for conciseness in the lede can, I think, tend to push things into Mainchean all/none territory.

At the same time, i am a bit concerned about how this general dispute over neutral tone (and what that means to the various active editors) might lead to a bit of logorrhea. The article still needs to be understandable by a general audience. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC) added language in italics after initial posting -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I gather you meant to write "Manichean all/none territory." In any case, terms like "Manichean" and "logorrhea" might be considered less than "understandable by a general audience." Apostle12 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Examples of Non-Neutral Text

Here are some particularly egregious examples of biased writing which I have removed from the section on Australia:

1. Indigenous Australians (2.4% of Australia's population) are welcomed to participate in a "multiculturalism" that celebrates their stories and artwork—however, they are not allowed to challenge the authority of white society, or the narrative of European colonizers as peaceful settlers. Thus, white privilege in Australia involves the ability to define the limits of what can be included in a "multicultural" society.

This is not a statement that most academics would agree with. Are indigenous Australians legally barred from challenging the authority of "white society," or the narrative of European colonizers as peaceful settlers? Are those who suggest that European colonizers illegitimately took the land socially ostracized? Do historians of Australia, as a whole, maintain and enforce a fiction of peaceful European settlement? What is written above is clearly a thesis held by some writers. As it is clearly not accepted universally, we cannot represent it in the definitive language above. If you want to include it, make it clear that this is a thesis, and attribute it to the proper people.

2. Indigenous studies in Australian universities remains controlled by white people, hires many white professors, and does not always embrace political changes that benefit indigenous people or respect their sovereignty.

That Indigenous studies departments are "controlled by white people" is not so much a statement of fact, but again, an argument that someone is making. Are we claiming in the article that there are no indigenous professors? Are we going to make the contention that white people do, in fact, control indigenous studies departments? To do so is to throw the encyclopaedia fully behind the opinion of one group.

3. Prevailing modes of Western epistemology and pedagogy, associated with the dominant white culture, are treated as universal while Indigenous perspectives are excluded or treated only as objects of study.

I don't agree that what is termed "Western epistemology" here is associated with white people, and I doubt you would find a majority of scientists who do. Are we stating that because the Enlightenment occurred in Europe, scientific methods are associated with white people? What of black scientists who contribute to our modern understanding of science and scientific methods, or Arab scientists, or Chinese scientists, or African scientists? And who is doing the associating? Do certain people associate "Western epistemology" with "white culture," or does everyone? Reading this sentence, you would think that everyone associates the prevailing modes of epistemology and pedagogy with "white culture."

4. For Australian whites, another aspect of privilege is the ability to identify with a global diaspora of other white people in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere. This privilege contrasts with the enforced separation of Indigenous Australians from other indigenous peoples in southeast Asia.

Here, the article makes two claims that one or another person might find convincing, but which hardly rise to the level of fact. Is it incontestable that the ability to identify with a global diaspora is a privilege? And who is forcibly keeping indigenous Australians separate from other indigenous peoples?

5. Global political issues such as climate change are framed in terms of white actors and effects on white countries.

This flat-out contradicts my experience reading the paper, where climate change often framed from the perspective of food insecurity, increasing aridity and scarcity of water resources, the rising of sea levels above island nations, all issues which, it is often stressed, affect Third-World nations more than developed countries. Here's the title of one of the top hits from LexisNexis ("climate change" in the Sydney Morning Herald): "Climate change threatens the fight to end poverty." The article goes into various consequences of climate change on the poorer nations on Earth, with a particular focus on Africa, as well as central southern and southeastern Asia. I could go on with more articles stressing the impact of climate change on countries which are not predominantly white - it wouldn't be difficult at all, because many such articles are written every day - but I think everyone gets the point. The problem here is again that a thesis advanced by certain writers is being proclaimed as the truth.

This is not what neutrality looks like. The existence of essays which argue a point, regardless of how convincing you find the argument, does not render it a fact, especially in the humanities. You have to ask yourself: "Is what I am writing a belief or thesis within portions of academia or society, or is it a fact universally acknowledged by people knowledgeable in the subject?" When we are dealing with questions such as, "Do white people control this branch of academia?", we are clearly dealing with questions which are open to a certain degree of interpretation, about which knowledgeable people will come to different conclusions. This acknowledgement has been lacking in much of the writing in this article, with the above statements being just a few egregious examples I found in one section. I hope this makes it clearer what the major NPOV problem is with this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

you hang a lot of your claims on an apparent knowledge of what a "majority of scientists" or "most academics" agree with. please feel free to provide sources for your assertions. I don't think we're going to be able to usefully address the issue of publication bias, but we have to work from what we've got. Some of the language could definitely stand to be rephrased, and i would invite you to help me and the others do so, rather than delete sections wholesale. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to dispute, in good faith, that, for example, climate change is often framed in terms of nonwhite actors and its effects on countries which are not majority white. The sections I highlighted above are simply not defensibly written. There is a difference between finding two or three papers which argue a thesis (especially in the humanities), and that thesis being incontrovertible fact. We are writing about somewhat subjective issues - whether white people control indigenous studies or urban planning in Australia, or whether absence of a certain form of oppression is a right or a privilege - about which we must all acknowledge there is disagreement. That is the central recognition that editors here must make before we can move forward. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Thucydides411 that the above statements, while they might be included in the article as perspectives held by specific people, cannot be stated as fact. The example regarding climate change being "framed in terms of white actors and effects on white countries" is especially egregious; this should only appear if it is immediateley countered by fact that climate change is frequently framed in terms of its disproportionate effect on non-white populations.

Also clear is the example regarding Western epistemology and pedagogy being "associated with the dominant white culture." This is nonsense: science is science and has nothing to do with race.

Patently untrue statements ("Indigenous Australians...are not allowed to challenge the authority of white society, or the narrative of European colonizers as peaceful settlers") have no place in this article. "The narrative of European colonizers as peaceful settlers" went out with the 1950s; no one supports this perspective today. In fact the narrative that prevails in the United States, Central America, South America and Australia is overwhelming critical of the manner in which European colonization occurred - perhaps over-emphasizing the very real and destructive violence of European settlers, as opposed to the inadvertent decimation of native populations by disease, which by current estimates accounted for perhaps 90% of indigenous casualties. Apostle12 (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

One source of non-neutrality in this article is the way in which statements made in journal articles are treated as authoritative by other editors here. When considering a publication such as the "Australian Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association e-journal," we should keep Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship in mind:

Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

ACRAWSA describes itself here: [13]. An excerpt is

"Finally, and whilst acknowledging the social construction of race, we also acknowledge the fact of Indigenous sovereignties and the ontological relationship to land through which Indigenous people carry their sovereignty. As noted by Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson, founder of ACRAWSA, critiques of the social construction of western categories of race cannot be mapped over Indigenous worldviews and accounts of culture. Taking Indigenous sovereignty as fact and recognising the ongoing claims to land of the many Indigenous nations is thus not counter to the constructionist and critical approach typically adopted within CRAWS. Rather, it recognises that the very need for such approaches stems from the effects of colonisation, empire, and globalisation, which come after, rather than pre-date the existence of First Nations."

ACRAWSA is thus partially a political organization. That is not to pass judgement on what it publishes, but it does mean that they represent the political views of the publishers of the ACRAWSA e-journal. Similarly, the journal "Social Alternatives" states "Social Alternatives is an independent, quarterly refereed journal which aims to promote public debate, commentary and dialogue about contemporary social, political, economic and environmental issues." Further, "We are committed to the principles of social justice and to creating spaces of dialogue intended to stimulate social alternatives to current conditions" ([14]). We have to treat views published in these journals, especially when they make broad statements of the type, "Indigenous studies in Australian universities remains controlled by white people," as opinions expressed by their authors. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinions and perspectives deserving mention, among others. Not facts. Apostle12 (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing disputes

I looked-in on this awhile back, and am surprised to see arguments still ongoing. That "white privilege" exists as a concept that has been extensively discussed and researched in academia is indisputable. That some question whether or not "white privilege" exists as a "reality" (whatever that is) also seems indisputable. Why is there not a section of the article entitled "Detractors" or something similar wherein those who question the concept can be cited? I see the "Limitations" section, but that is quite different from disputation of whether or not such a phenomenon exists in the first place. My own opinion is that whites are so privileged that they are often unable to see how privileged they are. However, NPOV would require that questions about its existence be documented in a comprehensive article on the topic. Meclee (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:CRITICISM, as others have pointed out in previous discussions. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

weasel words, again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^ Kruks, Sonia (6). Simone de Beauvoir and the Politics of Ambiguity. Oxford University Press. p. 97. ISBN 978-0195381436. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[Kruks-1] Kruks, Sonia (6). Simone de Beauvoir and the Politics of Ambiguity. Oxford University Press. p. 97. ISBN 978-0195381436. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[1]