Talk:White privilege/Archive 1

message: This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/White skin privilege.  dbenbenn | talk 09:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD 2005

message: The definition on the main page is lifted from WhitePrivilege.com, which is under a Creative Commons 1.0 license. 
Though a "dictionary definition" isn't the encyclopedic by nature, it's a starting point for further elaboration. -- Cleduc 05:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised that in the article there is no mention of Dr. Peggy McIntosh's work "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" where she lists specifically the privileges associated with white privilege.  Dr. McIntosh is a professor at Wellesley College, who works at the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.  Her list... (http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/mcintosh.html). It might be worth adding at least a couple of items from her list to the article to illustrate what exactly white privilege is. --24.16.234.149 10:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because she has a doctorate doesn't make what she writes worthwhile, notable, well-argued, or citable. --24.95.155.73 19:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: are there any sources of criticism of "white privilege" coming from the left?  as a leftist myself, i have long contested white privilege for precisely the reasons stated in the article (its removal of focus from class). it'd also be helpful, in keeping things NPOV, to include the rather obvious criticisms from the right..even though these are less personally interesting to me... User:128.54.78.199 (2005)
::There are criticisms of the idea of "white privilege" coming from the left. However, they tend to get pushed aside as the liberal movement has gottem themselves the power to comment on such. Liberals promote the neo-tribalism/identity politics that has gotten us to the situation now. Yes, it takes away from class conciousness to promote the idea that being "white" conferrs special staus in life. Rubbish, of course. This is not the Antebellum time, nor Jim Crow, nor even the later part of the middle of last century. Unfortunately, the liberals wish to continue to act as though it is, to keep their power of course. As for the main topic, I'd say the whole idea smacks of POV from the get-go. JBDay 01:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that inflammatory and inaccurate language that cannot be proven by credible sources should not be included in wikipedia. Therefore, I think that the following "The whites promoting this propaganda are usually upper class liberals who no longer struggle to make ends meet." should be deleted. I would like to see this topic updated and discussed in a respectful and thoughtful manner. GF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.15 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leftist criticisms 

message: After the improper creation of White privilege (royalty) the discussion for this page was lost.  Re-establishing it here, history remains at Talk:White privilege (royalty).  Cleduc 03:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved 

message: The article media and ethnicity covers this same subject in much more detail and with far more sources. 
Justin Alvarez Jr. 02:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of "white privilege" is not solely a media phenomenon, it is also an economic force and a factor in human interaction.  That's clear in the introduction to the article, though the article later goes on to elaborate influence on the media (which is a digression in my opinion). Removed merge tag.  Cleduc 02:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. It should be a stand-alone article. futurebird 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with giant article titled "Media and ethnicity"

message: The decision to merge this article to the giant article media and ethnicity has been dropped (for now). This is mainly because the giant article media and ethnicity, although it covers more than just media issues, might undergo a title makeover (making it more than just an article about the media). After this happens (it might take time), don't be surprised that someone reinstates the "merger" tag again on the articles: white privilege, media bias, cultural imperialism.
The big plan is for these smaller articles to merge with the giant article media and ethnicity (when or if re-titled), then from there, a super-merge will happen with the general article racism. 
Justin Alvarez Jr. 03:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger cancelled 

message: Talk:media and ethnicity
Justin Alvarez Jr. 05:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  You have a new message in the "Media and ethnicity" discussion page 

message: My collegues and I have significantly edited the content of this page as part of a graduate school project on multicultural issues. We would have preferred to discuss the revisions on this page prior to making the edit, but needed to get it up on a deadline and thus did not have the opportunity.  
Existing content in the prior "Background" section was largely retained, although edited and moved about. We added a new "Definition and Discussion" section, retaining some of the original content, revising some, and adding substantial text. 
We substantially revised a recent edit of the "Criticism" section. We felt this edit was written in a biased fashion which was not in keeping with the neutral point of view editorial rule of this publication. Statements such as "the whites promoting this propaganda [white privilege] are usually white upper class liberals who no longer struggle to make ends meet" seemed particularly out of step with a neutral POV. Also, footnote links to factual assertions such as that "most persons living in poverty in the U.S. are white" and "the only group with a growing poverty rate are likewise non-hispanic whites" were not completed--these seemingly controversial assertions were therefore unsubstantiated by references to authority. On the other hand, we put in references for our assertions that there remain statistical imbalances in major economic and social indicators in favor of Whites over people of color.  Certainly, it would be welcomed to see additional references for either position added to the page.
We recognize White Privilege is a "hot button" topic that is difficult to discuss objectively or neutrally. In our addition to the "Criticism" section, we attempted to be balanced and neutral, although we recognize others, such as the person who drafted the prior edit, may disagree. We welcome any discussion of, reaction to, or criticism of our edit!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab123 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a place for original research.  No school project on multicultural issues should EVER involve editing wikipedia.  I commend you and your colleagues for filtering out any existing statements are "facts" that shouldn't have been there.  But I would like to quote something you said in the above, "our assertions that there remain statistical imbalances in major economic and social indicators in favor of Whites over people of color".  This resembles a thesis paper, which should never be used on wikipedia.  Rather than say that there are major economic and social indicators in favor of whites over people of color, you could say "The 2000 US Census reported that Caucasian individuals made 29% more income on average than people of other races when averaged" (those are random numbers I used for the example). Remember, wikipedia is about fact, and not opinion. Chris01720 04:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Edit by Fab123

message: I find it difficult to believe that this article is not intended to push some kind of POV, and thus hve tagged it accordingly. Jtrainor 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had wrote the following towards the top of the discussion page, but thought that I should include it down here too because it was relevant in both areas, but for slightly different reasons.  Also, I removed something I said in my above entry because it wasn't relevant: Wikipedia is not a place for original research.  No school project on multicultural issues should EVER involve editing wikipedia (see the begining of the discussion page).  I commend you and your colleagues for filtering out any existing statements are "facts" that shouldn't have been there.  But I would like to quote something you said in the above, "our assertions that there remain statistical imbalances in major economic and social indicators in favor of Whites over people of color".  This resembles a thesis paper, which should never be used on wikipedia.  Rather than say that there are major economic and social indicators in favor of whites over people of color, you could say "The 2000 US Census reported that Caucasian individuals made 29% more income on average than people of other races when averaged" (those are random numbers I used for the example). Remember, wikipedia is about fact, and not opinion. Chris01720 04:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm disputing the neutrality of this article

message: I proposed this be deleted, it has no basis in fact, and is quite silly to even debate. I am shocked this has been on wiki as long as it has, it's blatent racism, and has no credible sources. This info would only be considered appropriate in radical racist propaganda. 68.10.43.220 20:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't go as far as to call it "radical racist propaganda", but it does need some hefty revision or possibly deletion.  If you read the top of the talk page you will see that this was actually the thesis or a group of grad students.  It reads like a thesis, cites its sources like a thesis, and has an argument statement just like a thesis paper.  I don't think the creator(s) intended it to be racist, but it does represent a single racist point of view. Chris01720 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You are misusing the term stereotype; white privilege is not a "stereotype" (please look up its definition), and no WP:RS would call it that.  Criticism of the concept would be that it is exaggerated or outdated, not that it is a "stereotype".--Pharos 20:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And the term "bigot." How the heck is it bigoted to say a certain group has more privelge in society? That is not inherently intolerant or hateful, and can often be the opposite. And just what evidence do you have that this is a "myth?" Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 05:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence do you have that is not? He's the one who thinks the article should go, not you, therefore it is you who bear the onus of proving that it exists and is noteable per Wikipedia policies. Jtrainor 13:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to exist, it just has to be discussed in reliable sources like the ones cited in the article. And it doesn't have to be proven notable when such reliable sources exist, as they are themselves the benchmark. That's why there's an article on God: We don't demand theists prove God exists and is notable before creating the article because the concept of God certainly exists and is notable. And it is not, in fact, the inclusionist who carries the burden of proof, but the deletionist. There is very little chance of having this deleted - please read WP:ATT and WP:N. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 06:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The page should just be deleted.  White privilege is not a fact because it is an abstract concept.  The person who essentially wrote this article wrote it as a thesis paper (look at the top of the talk page).  There are two problems with that.  First of all, it's original research.  But more importantly, a thesis is an argument. It is impossible to write a thesis paper on a fact; any English professor would give the student an F if they did.  The problem with this article is not whether or not white privilege exists, it's that the article is in no way encyclopedic.  It should explain what the concept of white privilege is.  It should not say anything along the lines of "white people have a higher income then minorities".  That is too vague of a blanket statement, even with a reliable source.  Instead, it should say something like "in the 2000 US Census the average black American had an annual income of bla-bla-bla while the average white American..." (please neglect the fact that my example has an American-centric view).  And every encyclopedia approaches the subject from every angle.  There is little mention of Affirmative Action in the US in the article.  It doesn't list that minorities get accepted into colleges easier than whites (and that is a fact because colleges in the US are fully open about that policy).  This article is just NOT FIT FOR AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.  Whether or not white privilege exists is not important. Chris01720 09:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted a large section of the article because of its source.  The source was a residential life document from the University of New Hampshire that was literally a checklist for students.  IT WAS A CHECKLIST; WTF, it has the same level of authority on the subject of white privilege that my weekly grocery list has. Also, I think the user "The Ungovernable Force" should take a look at Wikipedia's policy on Undue Weight. Chris01720 10:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some cleanup, and when I actually looked at some of the sources it was obvious that some of them were not credible and I either edited those sections or removed them.  Once I sifted out much of the entries from BS sources it doesn't have as much undue weight.  If you disagree with my edits then let me know. Chris01720 10:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's get rid of this one

message: I have made an attempt to make this page less racist and more educational by omitting weasel-words where I found them and by revising/omitting certain sections that harbored a very biased taste. I added my own lttle bash on hypocrisy in some parts; you can all take that out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.221.68 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel-Words

message: I had made major edits to this article months ago, much of which involved deleting a lot of information that had no factual basis and violated numerous Wikipedia guidelines.  The article is no where near perfect, but it has definitely progressed.  I would like to thank those who have been making edits and slowly progressing the article.  I do ask that everyone watch your style when writing.  Many parts of this article read more like an essay than an encyclopedia.  Keep up the good work. Chris01720 19:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I think the article is progressing well

message: I removed:
:The basis behind Sailer's comments is likely the creation of European industrialization, a "leap forward" for humanity on par with the development of agriculture. As a result, Europe and European societies progressed at a faster pace over the last century and a half than other parts of the world.
from the article because as phrased it is clearly Original Research. If this is indeed part of Sailer's work, please include citation and change phrasing to properly attribute the idea to Sailer when adding it back to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.115.165 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: "However it should also be mentioned that blacks and hispanics are, according to FBI released victim crime reports, eight times more likely to commit a felony than whites."
This quote has been added, removed, and readded, and I think it would be great if it was discussed here. Personally, I don't think it's relevant, and would remove it. Thoughts? Murderbike 00:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree it's irrelevant. We should have statistics that support the existence of white privilege, and statistics that support the non-existence of white privilege. I cannot see how this statistic does either of those things. If it were re-added, someone would need to use it to make some kind of logical inference about white privilege. Otherwise, it should be promptly removed. 64.231.193.236 02:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well put. I had a hard time understanding why this information was on this page. It's off topic. futurebird 02:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It does have some level of relevance in that it is involved in race relations.  However, I do not believe it belongs in the article.  Even if it was more on topic, it fails to address why--are they a product of their environment, genetically more likely, or does the stereotype that they commit crime play into their childhood development?--  Whether or not the statistic is true (and why) does not make it relevant enough to use in the article; it's more relevant in an article about racial justice.  A lower/higher crime rate is not a "privilege" experienced by a race (unless it is the ratio of crime-to-conviction that you are referring to). Chris01720 00:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On a related note in the same section of the article, the statement Black youth arrested for drug possession for the first time are incarcerated at a rate that is forty-eight times greater than the rate for white youth, even when all other factors surrounding the crime are identical. seems a little on the high side.  Are there other sources for this? Chris01720 00:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  good question. and there are probably multiple studies dealing with the same issues. offering multiple studies would only be a good thing, as I'm sure there is at least SOME variance. (maybe even contradictions?) 64.231.193.236 04:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance 

message: I strongly oppose deleting this article. I believe there is no basis for deleting this article, according to the articles for deletion policy. But please feel free to state your own reasoning at the AfDeletion debate page. Your voice counts. 67.71.1.139 15:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is silly. Why is there a deletion debate? The article is well sourced and has an extensive section on criticism? futurebird 16:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The opposition is generally based upon the umbrage those who have privilege yet who are unaware of their privilege. --Kukini  hablame aqui 16:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really transparent and a little sad. futurebird 16:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for painting me as a racist, but that won't make this article any better. Your comments have been noted. Jtrainor 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article fails WP:SYN, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SOAP, and our neutral POV policy. There's really nothing to argue about. In any case, I am incensed that you would make such a blanket accusation and assumption; we have a policy about that as well at WP:AGF. MalikCarr 22:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no need for anyone to feel defensive about white privilege. Benefiting from white privilege doesn't make you a racist.  Denying the existence of white privilege doesn't make you racist, either. However, denying the existence of white privilege might make you wrong. Otherwise, I don't care to speculate why seemingly intelligent people ignore factual evidence. 67.71.1.139 01:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said I was white? Your condescending tone is noted, Mr. IP Address. Jtrainor 01:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said you were white? In the interest of fairness, I responded with the same tone you've given others. "Thanks". 67.71.1.139 02:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrumph. Since I seem to be on trial here all of a sudden, I'll just spell it out for you. I'm not white. I'm an ethnic Greek, and I live in California. Last time I checked, us Hellenics weren't considered "whites" in the truest sense of the word. Hitler certainly didn't, anyway, and the racists of today seem to refer to him as the expert on what is or isn't "white". I don't have a lot of money, and I attend college on grants for doing well on standardized tests. I don't believe whites are somehow responsible for my current situation - I know a fair deal who are worse off than I am, no less. I oppose this article, not because I'm a pissed-off white who wants to control information and minority empowerment, as some editors have suggested, but because I think it's bogus as it is now. It's speculative, full of original research and the vast majority of its sources are completely inappropriate as the main references for a neutral and verifiable article. Are you happy now? MalikCarr 05:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand why anyone here felt the need to talk about their race, or how "not racist" they are. Nobody started a witchhunt based on race. Nobody accused anyone of being racist. Denying the existence of white privilege doesn't make someone racist. (Neither does admitting it, for that matter.) I don't understand the need to be defensive. But it is kind of sad if defensiveness is a factor in wanting to delete this article. 64.231.195.228 11:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Anonymous IP: Some editors have made the allegation that, since we're pushing for the demise of an article that claims to be about race relation in a fashion that doesn't favor whites, we must therefore be whites, and possibly pushing our own POV. I don't believe I should have to explain the existential reasoning for anything I do on Wikipedia, but in this case I figured it might help to dispel some editors' current perceptions about who we are and why we're doing this. Evidently not, however. Groan. MalikCarr 18:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No. I'm not happy. I'm annoyed that you have been vigorously supporting an article for deletion, when there was no reason to nominate it for deletion, and you seem to admit that you did it due to your personal POV rather than because you knew the content of the article warranted deletion. Please don't do that. futurebird 06:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal POV? Did you even read anything I've written here? MalikCarr 06:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've come to the conclusion that at least one of the editors who is pushing for the deletion of this article has some objective beside the improvement of the encyclopedia. I take back what I said, although I still encourage people to improve the article to try to save it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, your dislike of my support of this AfD has been noted. Honestly, the way you cite an alleged failure of AGF on my part, then make blatant accusations of totally unfounded basis is downright offensive. MalikCarr 05:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know he was talking about you? futurebird 05:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, because there's two people actively defending this AfD, and one of them hasn't even engaged in dialog with him? You'd have to be blind not to make the connection. MalikCarr 05:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now who's doing original research??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.29 (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thanks. None of us are operating under the pretense that the article is perfect, or even in an acceptable state. But it has been steadily improving in the past few months. We hope you can help us identify specific problems with the article so they can be fixed over the next few months. Unfortunately, the blanket effort to delete this article has failed to explain as much as you have. 67.71.1.139 02:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem. Tomorrow I'll try to find some articles that tie the race/criminal justice numbers directly to the concept of white skin privilege. Otherwise, that section of the article is considered WP:Original research because it's making a connection between the two that a reliable source hasn't made. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is now the subject of an "[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_privilege_%28sociology%29|Article for Deletion" debate]] 

message: People overwhelmingly pushed for keep. More importantly, nobody seemed to be able to undermine the credibility of the sources -- at least enough to justify deleting the whole article. Still, we should keep going steps further to improve the citations in this article. If there's a news article that cites a statistic from a report, we should track down and cross-cite the report. Thanks to everyone for helping make this article a credible one. Now let's keep raising the standard, slowly but surely. 64.231.195.228 03:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: Hi, Google books title search turned up 26 books on the subject that might help editing efforts. Benjiboi 03:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible [[NPOV]] sources 

message: Is that relevent to this article? Whites do not have to worry about being racially profiled. Then again, I can't show that racial profiling happens all that often. I have two sources dealing with one historical case, though:
* http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/10/12/racial.profiling.ap/
* http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/15792prs20020115.html
Does this fit? Maybe under the "Justice" section? 64.231.195.228 05:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Racial profiling is racial profiling and a form of racism. But the data shouldn't go directlin into this article because profiling is not really white privilige, except that a white person driving a Mercedes past a police officer doesnt have to worry that the police officer will assume the car is stolen and pull them over. But thanks for the links.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.28 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Racial profiling isn't always benefiting whites (though, admittedly, it is most of the time).  See my example in the discussion on the name change of this article.  In the case of the Israeli national airline the racial profiling does not necessarily benefit whites.  Therefore, I think racial profiling could be discussed, but it would have to make it clear that racial profiling does not always benefit whites, and just discuss racial profiling in the context of white privilege. -Chris01720 01:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about [[racial profiling]]? 

message: Thank you futurebird for removing the ridiculous section heading 'Operationalizing'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.29 (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  didn't think anyone would miss it. futurebird 05:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definitely an improvement. Although I have one constructive criticism. Since the section is now an Overview, maybe the most general information could be at the top, with more detailed or academic ideas deeper in the section? People reading this article may have no experience with the concept. Maybe the Peggy McIntosh idea should be at the top? I just know the idea of white privilege as property is a little complex, and only a subsection of the research on this topic. ... Either way, thanks a lot for the great edits so far. 64.231.195.228 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operationalizing No More! 

message: A lot of what I'm going on is common sense, but I'm 90% sure someone must have made the connection between these factors and white privilege:
* Most jobs are not advertised for, and are filled through social networks (creates an "old boys network")
* Alumni preference and legacy programs
I suspect someone out there has made the connection between these and white privilege, and have even backed it up with some statistics. 130.63.189.44 20:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other source of white privilege?