Keith Johnston (talk | contribs) |
Keith Johnston (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 276: | Line 276: | ||
== In short == |
== In short == |
||
{{archive top|result=Nothing here about improving this article, but rather general discussion of the topic. [[WP:NOTFORUM]]. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 14:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)}} |
|||
This white privilege thing is never quantified. Apparently can't be measured. All we're offered are stats on income and similar non sequiturs. The only possible reason for difference in income is obviously white privilege, and we can see that it is in fact white privilege because Asians are kicking everyone's ass in this regard. Also, O. J. Simpson apparently has white privilege, as do other wealthy and well-connected people of all races. So, besides requiring a leap into faith and lacking logic or supporting data, the hypothesis of white privilege appears to be in stark contrast with reality. Which, to be honest, is a common theme in postmodernist "thinking." |
This white privilege thing is never quantified. Apparently can't be measured. All we're offered are stats on income and similar non sequiturs. The only possible reason for difference in income is obviously white privilege, and we can see that it is in fact white privilege because Asians are kicking everyone's ass in this regard. Also, O. J. Simpson apparently has white privilege, as do other wealthy and well-connected people of all races. So, besides requiring a leap into faith and lacking logic or supporting data, the hypothesis of white privilege appears to be in stark contrast with reality. Which, to be honest, is a common theme in postmodernist "thinking." |
||
Fun fact - Peter Boghossian recently exposed postmodernism for the umpteenth time in the latest Sokal-style hoax, where he and his colleagues got a bunch of nonsensical papers published in postmodernist journals, even getting some awards if I remember correctly. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Sokal-Squared-Is-Huge/244714 And the pomo generator has been online for years. www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/ I really can't believe we're still flogging the dead postmodernist horse that was stillborn to begin with. [[User:Nikolaneberemed|Nikolaneberemed]] ([[User talk:Nikolaneberemed|talk]]) 11:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
Fun fact - Peter Boghossian recently exposed postmodernism for the umpteenth time in the latest Sokal-style hoax, where he and his colleagues got a bunch of nonsensical papers published in postmodernist journals, even getting some awards if I remember correctly. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Sokal-Squared-Is-Huge/244714 And the pomo generator has been online for years. www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/ I really can't believe we're still flogging the dead postmodernist horse that was stillborn to begin with. [[User:Nikolaneberemed|Nikolaneberemed]] ([[User talk:Nikolaneberemed|talk]]) 11:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks, [[User:Nikolaneberemed|Nikolaneberemed]] ([[User talk:Nikolaneberemed|talk]]) would you like to propose any specific changes to this page? Given its controversial nature every change needs to be accompanied with RS that editors with different political viewpoints can agree is RS, even if we don't agree with the conclusions of the RS. [[User:Keith Johnston|Keith Johnston]] ([[User talk:Keith Johnston|talk]]) 12:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
::Thanks, [[User:Nikolaneberemed|Nikolaneberemed]] ([[User talk:Nikolaneberemed|talk]]) would you like to propose any specific changes to this page? Given its controversial nature every change needs to be accompanied with RS that editors with different political viewpoints can agree is RS, even if we don't agree with the conclusions of the RS. [[User:Keith Johnston|Keith Johnston]] ([[User talk:Keith Johnston|talk]]) 12:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{archive bottom}} |
|||
User [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) once again your attempt to shut down a productive discussion by archiving it prematurely are invalid. this is very disrespectful to editors. |
Revision as of 14:11, 5 October 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacademician (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Afuakessie, Shantalaleman (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SandraJaay. |
Racist propaganda?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This looks like racist propaganda, completely biased and entirely devoid of any criticism. I remember when Croatian Wikipedia was taken over by the neo-Ustasha movement in 2013. This looks exactly like that crap. Brainwashed people repeating what they heard from their favorite propagandists and steering completely clear of any and all criticism of their beloved ideas. Feelings over facts. The activist admins on Croatian wiki locked articles and fought all attempts to add criticism sections, correct factual errors or add unbiased sources. The problem on Croatian wiki was ultimately solved by alerting the higher-ups about it, if I remember correctly. Nikolaneberemed (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- The "Contrasting concepts" section already contains quite a bit of criticism of the concept. Do you have any critical sources that you'd like to see appear in the article? --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well it's too bad it seems that entire section was recently and indiscriminately deleted by a user (who probably shouldn't be editing topics with which they have a clear political bias). I came here to look for balanced information on this topic and had to resort to reading a older diff. Irked, I won't join the discussion occurring below, but I do hope sensible minds will come to a consensus which will go toward actually improving Wikipedia. -- Ϫ 03:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's racist, just semantic slight of hand. A whole field of study devoted to the redefinition of discrimination of minorities, as the privilege of the majority. But if the majority can be considered to occupy a privileged state, then what used to be known as discrimination becomes the baseline, or the norm so to speak. So whereas you formerly had norm > discrimination, you now have privilege > norm. It makes little difference what you call it at the end of the day. The only logical use of this term to my mind would be in societies where whites control the mechanisms of government and administration as a minority, which would indeed seem to be a privileged position. That's happening less and less in a post-colonial world however. Telenarn (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well it's too bad it seems that entire section was recently and indiscriminately deleted by a user (who probably shouldn't be editing topics with which they have a clear political bias). I came here to look for balanced information on this topic and had to resort to reading a older diff. Irked, I won't join the discussion occurring below, but I do hope sensible minds will come to a consensus which will go toward actually improving Wikipedia. -- Ϫ 03:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Telenarn: - not sure that you know that this page is only for discussion of the article, not the subject. Do you have any reliable sources backing your comments? Doug Weller talk 15:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- My thinking on the deliberate semantic framing of the term white privilege is based largely on "Inequality as Ingroup Privilege or Outgroup Disadvantage: The Impact of Group Focus on Collective Guilt and Interracial Attitudes", which is currently the 50th cited source in the article and forms part of the basis for the "Framing racial inequality" subsection.[1]. My apologies for not pointing this out, I had (wrongly) assumed that those responsible for the guardianship of this page would be familiar with their own sources. My mistake! Please let me know if there's anything else you're confused about. Telenarn (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Telenarn: - not sure that you know that this page is only for discussion of the article, not the subject. Do you have any reliable sources backing your comments? Doug Weller talk 15:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Powell, Adam A.; Branscombe, Nyla R.; Schmitt, Michael T. (2005). "Inequality as Ingroup Privilege or Outgroup Disadvantage: The Impact of Group Focus on Collective Guilt and Interracial Attitudes" (PDF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 31 (4). Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.: 508–21. doi:10.1177/0146167204271713. PMID 15743985. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 22, 2013. Retrieved April 15, 2013.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help)
- Obviously the accusation I was refuting from the source in question was that the term is based in racism, when the evidence suggests it is not.The propaganda allegation is also covered by this refutation, as using semantics to re-frame an issue is not inherently dishonest, or misleading (in my opinion.) Telenarn (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Telenarn: no one is responsible for the guardianship of the article. Again, this talk page is not meant for refutation of our sources, but if you can find a source that discusses the source you want to refute, we might be able to use that. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: I think you've confused yourself Doug. Look at the talk section heading and look again at my refutation. The allegation being made in this talk section is that the article "looks like racist propaganda". The source I have used is directly from the article and (in my opinion) refutes this allegation. I have no interest in refuting sources - although I personally don't agree with all the conclusions of this one - but that is neither here, nor there in regard to the allegation made. Please let me know if there's anything else I can clarify for you. Thanks. Telenarn (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Contrasting concepts
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Malik Shabazz has requested that I "use the talk page to explain why you deleted 18KB instead of just reverting the addition of David Duke quote"[1]. That is an entirely reasonable request.
To my eye it looks as though the "Contrasting concepts" section has come to have all the problems of a "Criticism" section, including the tendency to become a repository for views that lack due weight. But it's worse that. Unlike a "Criticism" section it contains views with an unspecified relationship to the main topic of the article. Look at "intersectionality", for example. The concept of intersectionality is entirely compatible with the concept of white privilege. People often say things like, "I am privileged in regards to race and oppressed in regards to sexual orientation." So why is it in the "Contrasting concepts" section? As far as I can tell, it is there because the section has come to contain everything but the WP:KITCHENSINK.
I wanted to delete David Duke's quote because Duke is obviously on the fringe, no matter what the topic of discussion is. But the "Contracting concepts" section has come to be so ill-defined -- to put it in policy terms, it is apparently entirely acceptable to use original research to determine that something in the section is a "contrasting concept", to say nothing of due weight -- that I really could not explain why Duke's views did not belong in the section but the other views did.
As long as there is a lack of consensus, I will not delete the section wholesale again. But could someone give me a good reason for keeping the contents? And if we are going to keep the contents, is there a good reason for putting them into the "Contrasting concepts" and not incorporating them into the rest of the body using reliable sources?
-- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 00:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for starting this discussion. I was concerned because earlier today (in my time zone), an editor added a subsection to the "Contrasting concepts" about David Duke's views and your response was to delete the entire "Contrasting concepts" section with an edit summary that only mentioned David Duke.
- I'm not wed to keeping the section or the material in it, especially if it gives undue weight to some of the ideas in it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, I was the one who added the one sentence quote. The reason for it, was that there is a Marxist critique, Marxism, is by and large fairly fringe post-USSR, and yet there is several paragraphs focused on it. This is a consistent problem I have with Wikipedia constantly allowing undue weight to fringe left-wing opinions, but not giving any weight to the fringe right. Personally, I absolutely disagree with both, but multiple times throughout Wikipedia I have found that very fringe left-wing figures such as Slavoj Žižek on the page Racial fetishism, and Robert Jensen, Feminist views on transgender topics are given weight, when opposing views are limited to people who slightly disagree on method of implementation but still hold the same ideas. For the record, I am not trying to use Wikipedia to prove a point about policy, but rather just using what seems to already be the defacto precedent in an equal manner. ShimonChai (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- ShimonChai, thank you for explaining your edit.
- If you want to discuss the real or alleged disparity between the use of opinions from the far left and those from the far right, you are welcome to bring them to my personal talk page. I will not discuss the matter here.
- Regarding the use of Arnesen specifically as a source, I note the following (not so much for you but for anyone who might object to the deletion of the content based on his work):
- Extrapolating what the "Marxist critiques" of the concept of white privilege are from one source, even one as well-cited as Arnesen, is prima facie original research.
- After skimming over the papers that cite Arnesen, there do not seem to be any that say he offers a contrasting concept.
- It ought to be obvious that saying that a concept is "particularly controversial" outside a quote from a reliable source is contentious labeling.
- If I see no objections here by Wednesday 1:42 AM GMT, I will delete the "Contrasting concepts" section again.
- -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 14:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well I don't know whether the section was adequately sourced or not but is clearly farcical not to have any criticism of white privilege theory in the article at all. It is a highly contentious subject like feminism or supply side economics. Was the whole criticism section really suitable for deletion? Liberty axe (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- If you want to see what was deleted, here is the relevant diff:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_privilege&type=revision&diff=851624344&oldid=851577697
- If I remember correctly, the current consensus is that this article should not have a criticism section. In any case Criticism sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. If you find a reliable source that is critical of the concept of white privilege, you can insert the ideas it expresses into the body of the article as long as you do not give it more than its due weight. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 19:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't agree with simply deleting all of it. You talk about giving David Dukes opinion undue weight, there was only one sentence about that. I can see that you are not supposed to have a section on criticism (however for example supply-side economics has precisely that). So I think you have two options; either to try and work the criticisms into the particular part of the article they fit, or have something like a "Responses" sections from people who not worked on popularising the concept, which could have some positive and negative responses. The second sounds easier. Criticism of the topic is highly relevant by the way as this is an area of study not subject to much rigour and has a lot of flimsily proposed assertions Liberty axe (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well I don't know whether the section was adequately sourced or not but is clearly farcical not to have any criticism of white privilege theory in the article at all. It is a highly contentious subject like feminism or supply side economics. Was the whole criticism section really suitable for deletion? Liberty axe (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Is a major paragraph on Macklemore reliable or noteworthy? How about multiple paragraphs from Theodore W. Allen? Or the opinion piece from Robert Jensen? An entire paragraph about an article published by Bernardine Dohrn in Lesbian Tide? Two fairly big paragraphs about the film "White People" by MTV? What about quoting racism activists like Peggy McIntosh who is a major part of the article? I am sure that you can admit, at least to some degree that, an article from a member of Weather Underground in Lesbian Tide, is fairly fringe. ShimonChai (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment on several points:
- 1. Wikipedia:Criticism is an essay and "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." In fact, there is no community consensus that "criticism sections are discouraged". This argument is mainly used by editors who want to bury criticism of a subject in an article that they have POV-feelings about.
- If the user would like to establish community policy on this question, she should start a WP:RfC or a Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) about the acceptability of criticism sections. Until that happens and the community agrees with her, this is not policy and she is simply expressing an opinion.
- 2. The article is extremely POV. As are this user's edits to it. 'White privilege' is a concept in sociology (used as a framing and defining concept in analyses and in advocating policies) and a highly controversial one, especially outside of certain academic disciplines and in society in general. It is not an unquestioned truth or a universally accepted fact and should not be treated as such in the article.
- 3. Among the things that Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a science journal. When the article is about a concept in society, and especially when that concept is controversial and debated, the Wikipedia article should include coverage of that controversy and debate with a range of opinions representing at least the major divisions of opinion and not just cherrypick (and yes, that link is to an essay) certain favorable academics and a few supporting pundits. It should include dissenting opinions both in relevant academic fields and in pubic opinion.
23.91.234.76 (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- It is also worth mentioning that the article is hugely America-centric and almost entirely focused on the English-speaking world. The whole rest of the world does social studies too, and not just from a "white people vs black people" or "white people vs everybody else" perspective. But there is very little mention of studies of any other types of majority (or plurality or otherwise dominant group) - minority relationships, even in the "See also" section. 23.91.234.76 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have removed the content a second time. Several good points have already been raised about how unbalanced and bloated this had become. Who is David Marcus and why does he get to speak on behalf of all conservatives? Lewis Gordon get's three paragraphs, including a lengthy block quote. Further, disputing the use of the term "privilege" is not the same as disputing the underlying concept, so I am not confident these three paragraphs are fair representations of this position. Why does Lawrence Blum get two unusually long and detailed rebuttals to an argument that has not even been well-established as significant? It goes on like this.
- The underlying idea of this section is sound, but again again again again, this should not be abused into becoming a backdoor CSECTION. This appraoch has already been thoroughly rejected for good reasons, and ignoring those reasons is not acceptable. Replacing "criticism" with something slightly euphemistic and vaguely academic doesn't sufficiently address the real problem with this approach. Grayfell (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The justification for not having a critique section on this page was that such criticism could be best included in the contrasting concepts section or included in the main text. Unfortunately the current cabal of editors of this page will not allow any fundamental critique of the theory, even that which is is well sourced, in the main section of the page. The height of absurdity is that even the word 'criticism' was banned to be replaced by the Orwellian 'contrasting concepts', but now even that heresy is too much.
There is tantalising reference to critique in the opening section, but while this must suggest there is more to come in the body of the article, it is oddly absent. What's more this critique is couched in the age-old canard that critics have misunderstood the concept, so they can be safely ignored. Worst of all the opening sentence is far too definitive. "White privilege", a theory highly controversial in conservative circles, is presented here as fact. I despair thinking at how many students and journalists must have cut-and-paste the disastrously misleading opening sentence.
This means the page has become mere propaganda for the theory. One day this will change, but not until a majority of editors consistently complain to senior open minded editors. This page continues to be a disgrace to the thousands of wikipedia editors who can have sensible debates with liberals and conservatives they disagree with and come to a true consensus which includes common critique. Instead editors on this page use force of numbers and bullying to get their way. I encourage editors to find ways to change this. Keith Johnston (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2018
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"The concept of white privilege also came to be used within radical circles for purposes of self-criticism by anti-racist whites. For instance, a 1975 article in Lesbian Tide criticized the American feminist movement for exhibiting "class privilege" and "white privilege". Weather Underground leader Bernardine Dohrn, in a 1977 Lesbian Tide article, wrote: "... by assuming that I was beyond white privilege or allying with male privilege because I understood it, I prepared and led the way for a totally opportunist direction which infected all of our work and betrayed revolutionary principles.""
At the end of the quote is a citations needed, in "Absolute Privilege to Deprive: "Discovery of White Privilege" by Kuldip S. Randhawa at Position 2930/45% in the Amazon Kindle Version. Unfurtantly I don't have the page number. I hope I could hep. 37.201.5.63 (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, the problem is fixed, but in a different way than you intended. The book you recommend was self-published, so it's not reliable. It was published in 2015, and the 2014–2015 version of this Wikipedia article contained that same quote you placed above, so it's likely that Kuldip S. Randhawa copied from Wikipedia to write his book.
- I went back to 2013 in the edit history of this article find the old reference to a Master's thesis, and I added that back in. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Binksternet: that's not a reliable source is it? In any case, there should be better sources for it if it's to be included. I'm n ot disagreeing with the text, just trying to stay consistent with what I've said elsewhere. 15:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Criticism of the Invisible Backpack
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here is a very interesting article sourced from Quillette critiquing Peggy McIntosh's Invisible Backpack on the basis that it is not a scholarly analysis but rather a personal record. Here’s what Peggy McIntosh herself says on in the original 1988 paper: “This paper is a partial record of my personal observations and not a scholarly analysis. It is based on my daily experiences within my particular circumstances”
The source is here: https://quillette.com/2018/08/29/unpacking-peggy-mcintoshs-knapsack/#comment-33897
I have seen this criticism a few times now and its important because the Invisible Backpack is a foundational paper for White Privilege theory. I wonder if there is a place in this article to include this critique? Keith Johnston (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- The link you gave is to a comment stating "
I have the same question. My sense is that other actors weaponized it. Between that and intersection it destroyed the beginnings of co-ordinated world wide resistance after ten years of war and the financial meltdown. Now we don’t even have a peace movement.
" - That aside, we need more than a self published critique for it to be included. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks sorry I gave the link to the comment, not the full article. I was referring to the article, not the comment. Here it is https://quillette.com/2018/08/29/unpacking-peggy-mcintoshs-knapsack/ It is not self-published, it was published by a reliable source, Quillette.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- That piece is very much of an essay; it is not reporting accepted information, but rather giving the author's opinion. (very evident in passages like
The apostles of this ludicrous doctrine ...
). The bio at the bottom says "William Ray is a decorated former Canadian Peacekeeper now working as a Journalist, Documentary Film-maker, and very substandard handyman. He is active in advancing Press Freedom in Montréal.". We don't appear to have an article on him at the diambig page: William Ray. Why is this person's opinion noteworthy? 08:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, its important to include the significant critiques of the theory and this critique, that McIntosh's essay is not based on scholarly work, has become a noteworthy critique of White Privilege theory. Jordan Peterson (gasp!) has made the same arguments here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfH8IG7Awk0. Ironically your objection that the Quillette piece is "merely the authors opinion" is precisely in the same vein as his critique of McIntosh's work. As McIntosh freely admits her original article is very much an essay, not a scholarly work but giving her "partial record of my personal observations". Keith Johnston (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- We have many reliable, scholarly works commenting on this essay, which is why it's discussed here. Your WP:SPA push to include a CSECTION in this article is against consensus and needs to stop, as it is still disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am not arguing for a CSECTION. If I am point to the passages that support your contention? If you cannot will you withdraw this claim?
- Your accusation of disruption is also false. I make my comments on the talk pages, support them with RS, and I do not force edits. I note that, once again, you do not engage with the RS, or the argumentation, but instead widen the issue in an attempt at misdirection. This is fillibustering.
- The one argument you do posit: that because there is no consensus for a CSECTION, critique should not be expanded upon is absurd. The best argument for not having a CSECTION is that critique can be woven into the body of the article, which is precisely what I am proposing. Rather I charge that your false position that I am arguing for a CSECTION is cover for your consistent position that critique supported by RS should not be included at all.
- I have consistently argued for the inclusion of reliably sourced critique, representing argumentation found in RS, that is all. Your misrepresentation of my position must stop, as should your campaign to protect this controversial theory from critique supported by RS. Keith Johnston (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- You have consistently argued for the inclusion of opinions you agree with, and have abused various sources to support this. Yet again, you are attempting to narrowly confine the discussion, and yet again, I remind you that you do not have that right. Attempts to "engage the sources" are pointless if they are either unreliable political gossip, such as these, or you have demonstrated that you are not fairly summarizing them. You spent many weeks pushing for Atlantic/Friedersdorf article to be misrepresented as somehow opposed to the entire concept. This was a source which specifically argues for students to read "thought-provoking works like Peggy McIntosh's influential essay on privilege." Now you want us to insert some obscure essays and 2.5-hour-long ramble-fests criticizing this essay? WP:CIVILPOV is not acceptable. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, can you point to the passages that support your contention that I am arguing for a CSECTION? I see you have not as yet. Since this argument is now being used to deny me the right to suggest any critique regardless of its RS (and paint me as unreasonable since I apparently cannot accept the outcome of the RFC), it would be useful to get clarity on this point before continuing the discussion on the relevance of the RS. The false claim that I am continuing the push for a CSECTION is a convenient get-out-of-jail free card when other argumentation fails.
- Perhaps, for the sake of clarity, it would be useful to re-state my view that, while I believe a CSECTION would be useful, I am not pushing for a CSECTION on this page because I accept the argument that critique can be incorporated into the body of the text. Keith Johnston (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
critique? By your own description, this is its main quality, and this also appears to be the main reason you want it included here. You are, again, pushing for the inclusion of critical content solely because it is critical. This is a direct continuation of your prior disruptive behavior. As with all the other essays and youtube videos (!) you have pushed for including, you have not even indicated why this would be significant or valuable to readers, and you have so severely poisoned the well for this kind of thing that it's hard to take this kind of hyper-civil shtick seriously. Grayfell (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
This is just a socio-cultural theory and not fact. The article is biased and not balanced.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article reads as if the article is fact and not theory. there is no critical analysis inserted in the article and the article is entirely from the point of view of being entirely accepted fact. This is not the case. This also fails to explain why this theory developed. the article simply states it was like the discovery of the electron or the earth being round. This is not the case this is a sociology theory and not fact. This article needs balance. At the moment this article is pandering and in danger of being an anti-white article and an article promoting white people = racists. This is not the case. this article is controversial but that does not mean that it should be only from a point of view which of there blind acceptance of the theory. This article is well sourced for only one side of point of view. This needs serious updating and balance applying. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- 91.110.126.22, I've left a message at your talk page to ping you here, since as an anonymous user, you are not not pingable. The purpose of this Talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, not to rant about your opinions about it. My inclination is to hide your post above as off-topic per the guideline at WP:SIGCLEAN, unless you can supply a reason why it should not be. Mathglot (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am pointing out factual voids in the article which is shining a light on the problems with the article and how it reads. The subject matter is not fact the article needs to convey that. It does not. The subject matter is lopsidedly portrayed. I have pointed this out. The article reads poorly and is full of pandering. Again article comments not general discussions. I fail entirety to see how you have come to the conclusion you have and have actually read the comments I posted. I feel you have seen a critique of the article and have gone into defense mode. The above comments show where the article is making mistakes. The mistakes are fundamental and core. The article portrays this theory as fact and it does read along a very slanted point of view. The point of view slant is close to being anti-white and almost a commentary of 'whites are racist' in its tone. These are article criticisms. The original comments are not a discussion on the theory itself, you are trying to make them such. Please engage on the serious deficiencies of the article. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please provide reliable sources that support the changes you'd like to see. You could also provide some examples of what parts of the article you think are anti-white. --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am pointing out factual voids in the article which is shining a light on the problems with the article and how it reads. The subject matter is not fact the article needs to convey that. It does not. The subject matter is lopsidedly portrayed. I have pointed this out. The article reads poorly and is full of pandering. Again article comments not general discussions. I fail entirety to see how you have come to the conclusion you have and have actually read the comments I posted. I feel you have seen a critique of the article and have gone into defense mode. The above comments show where the article is making mistakes. The mistakes are fundamental and core. The article portrays this theory as fact and it does read along a very slanted point of view. The point of view slant is close to being anti-white and almost a commentary of 'whites are racist' in its tone. These are article criticisms. The original comments are not a discussion on the theory itself, you are trying to make them such. Please engage on the serious deficiencies of the article. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Some sources as requested. Plenty more can be provided these are a quick sampling: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] 91.110.126.22 (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- The 3rd link is an 1891 NYTimes article. The 6th, the Guardian, just quotes Jordan Peterson saying white privilege is a Marxist lie. So what? The 8th is "Redlinemedia is run by Grant (@The_Typical_Liberal), Rogan (@DC_Draino), and Dylan (@Too_Savage_For_Democrats). We are three young conservatives who, just like you, are sick and tired of the fake news and negative coverage from the mainstream media." In other words, self-pulished on a right wing site. The last one doesn't mention white privilege unless you count comments. The Australian Daily Telegraph opinion piece is by Mark Latham who is a contributor to Rebel Media. The fifth is by a fan of Jordan Peterson. Most of the sources are just opinion pieces, mainly from the right. The only obvious one that isn't is Channel 4's Fact Check which doesn't mention the subject. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- The above reply is the reason the article is in the state it is in. It is a refusal to entertain any criticism of the article. The article contains feminists and others who would be classified as left wing, yet dismissals of those who give an alternative are ridiculed. The feminists are and others on the left are just as opinion based and subject to identical critiquing. Also since when were reliable media sources albeit ones that are disagreed with verbotten? 91.110.126.22 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Please also find more sources here: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]
- The most troubling thing about this whole article is the portrayal of Peggy McIntosh. All she did was write an essay which got popularised. No scientific double bind research or peer reviewed work. Just an essay. This source sums it up nicely
The article portrays this as some kind of biblical revelation. It was not. The origin of this term is from the essay of one feminist who got the essay and the term popularised. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)It has been a relatively short time—just more than twenty years, in fact—since that term, “white privilege,” was popularized by the feverish, largely grassroots, pre-World-Wide-Web circulation of a now-famous essay written by my now-equally-famous friend and colleague, Peggy McIntosh.
- The most troubling thing about this whole article is the portrayal of Peggy McIntosh. All she did was write an essay which got popularised. No scientific double bind research or peer reviewed work. Just an essay. This source sums it up nicely
- Since this is the Internet, we all have access to Google as well. Copy/pasting links to opinions and such remains unpersuasive. This argument is especially weak since glancing at some of these links I can see that they do, in fact, accept the legitimacy of white privilege as a concept. This kitchen-sink approach is disrespectful of other people's time, and also completely ignores the many, many many past discussions of this exact issue. McIntosh's essay has been discussed by reliable, academic sources. Barfing up some pointless search results changes nothing. Grayfell (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
91.110.126.22, With all due respect, you have been editing here for one month, and starting off with a battleground mentality instead of looking around and learning the ropes a little bit from guidelines and more experienced editors, is not going to get you anywhere. It's fine to have an opposing opinion, and experienced editors here will hear you out, but not if you rant about your personal opinions and quote irrelevant links that do not prove your point.
Here is a suggestion: instead of complaining about everything and everyone, make one single concrete suggestion about specific words to put in the article. Say something like this: "In section XYZ paragraph 3, let's change the words ' Colorless green ideas sleep furiously ' to ' These are the times that try men's souls ' ", and see what your fellow editors think about your concrete suggestion. You can do that here, or, per the Bold, revert, discuss principle, go ahead and make a bold edit like that directly to the article. If you do the latter, make sure you understand the core principles of verifiability and reliable sources, and how to create a citation. Follow the guidelines of netural point of view and due weight in suggesting or adding your content. If you follow these suggestions, you will have a much better chance of success. Finally, assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors; everybody else here is an unpaid volunteer, and just trying to improve the article, and the encyclopedia. Just like you are—that is my assumption, anyway, until proven otherwise. I've left a Welcome message on your Talk page with some handy links about Wikipedia basics. Please read it, and follow the links. What you do next, is up to you. Best, Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Please note as this page is protected I am unable to edit this page. Please check the facts before requesting that action is taken. In this case the bold editing you are suggesting is not possible. Thank you for the welcome message. I will take a few days and I will rip apart the article and post suggestions. Until then The above shows to demonstrate how bad the current article is and how biased and lopsided the article is. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, 91.110.126.22 (talk) you make some excellent points. Would you be able to parse this down into some practical suggestions for changes based on particular RS? You can do this on the talk page and then editors can discuss it and agree a way forward. Keith Johnston (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia - what the hell is going on ?
I am sorry, are articles actualy not being reviewed anymore ..... ? The entire subject is written like any of those claims are undisputable fact not a theory, which it ultimately is, a theory, with many flaws and an incredibly biased study. In most countries of this planet there is no such thing perceived as "privilege" associated with skin color. When you can't prove something, don't label it "unconscious" .... that's redicilous. Privilege is only applicable to social status in the overwhelming majority. Don't treat exceptions as rules, especialy when it's niche. I'm a "white" (light skinned) person myself who had to immigrate to another country due to war and my skin color, which is lighter than most the inhabitants of my new home, didn't grant me any privileges over others or save me of the terrors of migration burocracy. The fact you were foreign caused 15 years of hardship and intolerance and despite having myself well integrated and established in this new society there is still felt and factualy resentment and bias towards people, no matter what country they come from, because you are not indigenous to this one. Skin color has absolutly zero relevance. I've seen dark skinned people be more regarded and successful than everyone else. Whoever can and wants to be successful will be and that elevated social status, is what gives you privileges. Not your skin color. The entire article is flawed in its core and doesn't reflect reality adequately.
TheMightyGeneral (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- It sounds to me as if you are saying that a white person (you) can make it in a white country (your new home). So what is your suggstion as to how to improve the article. Carptrash (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NOTAFORUM. You should provide concrete sources and text for improving the article, rather than anecdotal evidence that the article is totally wrong. As you can see from the talk page history, there's always an editor every few weeks who will come in with complaints similar to yours. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, user TheMightyGeneral (talk). I agree with the thrust of your comments. Would you be able to make some specific suggestions about how to improve the page based on RS?Keith Johnston (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
This is not the type of articles I focus on User:FenixFeather and I trust editors who do, to treat theories and individual claims as exactly such.
Keith Johnston For a start, something in the line of "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the concept (theory) of societal privilege" and a LOT more "according to her ( 'study', theory ) / him ( his 'study', theory ) " .... less matter of fact type writing. It is not appropriate to treat individual theories based on possibly agenda driven study, as fact. To be fair, it's mostly the intro. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. We are not going to hedge because you have a personal disagreement with the article. Please WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS elsewhere, then come back when you've succeeded. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 16:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, you make an excellent point TheMightyGeneral, can you find RS to support this view?Keith Johnston (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry User:FenixFeather, who is "we" and what exactly are you "hedging" ? I'm suggesting proper wording in accordance to editing guidelines that are defined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch
"Please WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS elsewhere," <- nobody should be doing, and also suggesting this to others. To someone who claims wikipedia is fundamentaly flawed on their profile page, you seem very rash to ridicule an dismiss other people's suggestions without much consideration.
I am not here to argue with editors. I rest my case. This article needs improvements. Ignore it or do whatever you want. This is not my area.
TheMightyGeneral (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is partly fundamentally flawed because articles like these are constantly bombarded with unfounded neutrality complaints like this one. Yes, I'm a little disillusioned, but that doesn't mean I won't try to improve it where I can. Propose reliable sources that cast doubt on the existence of white privilege, and you're good to go. Please don't suggest we change our language to pretend this is some sort of fringe conspiracy theory when you have no reliable sources that indicate it as such. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, and on your personal anecdote: at the risk of creating a tangent to the discussion, the existence of white privilege doesn't invalidate your personal experiences. People are more than their race. White privilege just says that sometimes, people of color are disadvantaged compared to white people, and therefore those white people have access to privileges that people of color don't. It's not saying that your accomplishments are not worthwhile because you're white, or that you'll never suffer hardship ever. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- The first paragraph does a perfectly serviceable job of defining the term "white privilege". Instead of rushing to damn the underlying concept with weasel words and hedging as soon as possible, the article can (and does) explain what the term means and indicate how it's applied, with commentary coming later.
- There is an endless buffet of opinion articles accusing the boogieman of "academia" of overusing the term, or claiming that it's no longer relevant to modern society, or similar unprovable assertions backed by anecdotes and fear-mongering. A handful of editors have pushed for the inclusion of these sources based on a poor understanding of due weight and scholarship. No reliable source I have seen denies that white privilege exists, so the definition is not the issue. I have not seen any criticism of white privilege as term used to describe a concept, merely how the term is applied in certain situations, or how the concept is taught to certain groups or at certain schools. From reliable sources, rephrasing the lede to undermine this definition based on personal dislike of how it's applied would be non-neutral, and would damage the article. Grayfell (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
User:FenixFeather I'm not disagreeing with that in general, but fact remains that's not the rule. Like at all. It may be an expressed niche social problem in single nations like the United States, than the rest of the world, in a pool of much more explicit, globaly common and far more expressed social issues of cultural, religious, and nationalistic manner everywhere else, that cause even wars. Its not just a consistency error but factualy false. I definitly don't have the nerves to start editing this and then be drawn into editing wars. I just ask for for respecting the guidelines and treating such highly controversial and debatable topics with care, as they should be. Peace out.
"::The first paragraph does a perfectly serviceable job of defining the term "white privilege". Instead of rushing to damn the underlying concept with weasel words and hedging as soon as possible, the article can (and does) explain what the term means and indicate how it's applied, with commentary coming later."
Grayfell Why not do that from start and avoid it alltogheter ?
btw I don't know who or what you're talking about, I'm not targeting any specific editor. I just read the article and noticed that error.
TheMightyGeneral (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Doing what? The article already does this, that was my point, so I don't understand your question. Your dislike of how something is explained isn't necessarily an error. If you have a reliable source to propose, let's see it. Your comments suggest confusion about the topic. Your personal definition limiting "privilege" to the overwhelming majority is not consistent with the academic definition, and this article is about "white privilege" specifically. If you want to discuss how privileges overlap and interfere with each other, that's intersectionality, and this talk page isn't a forum. Again, if you have a source, let's see it, otherwise this is unlikely to be productive. Grayfell (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- TheMightyGeneral (talk) Your contribution is very sensible and suggests you know exactly what your talking about. I agree tts very important to present the social sciences as theory where they are theory. Happy to discuss a specific change if you have RS to support it.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I note that in the talk the section above user 91.110.126.22 (talk) is making essentially the same point and has provided some sources which might be useful.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Its also worth noting that other editors have made the same or similar points over the last year on either the lede or the neutrality of this page. These include: Nikolaneberemed (talk) œ Telenarn (talk) 23.91.234.76 (talk) ShimonChai (talk) Jobberone (talk) RichardWeiss (talk) 66.87.118.12 (talk) Keithramone33 (talk) This might suggest you on to something if RS can be found to support you. Keith Johnston (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Given their previous interest in this topic I have left this message on their talk pages "I note that you have previously commented on the White Privilege page. There are ongoing discussions on this page which are connected to previous issues you have raised. You may find it interesting to review and contribute to this ongoing debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_privilege#Wikipedia_-_what_the_hell_is_going_on_?". From what I can see the editors who disagreed with them are very active on this page and will be automatically notified so I have not left this message on their page, however, if editors believe there are other editors who should be notified please let me know or feel free to do so yourself. Keith Johnston (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Controversial topics require more sourcing and more balance. I'll see what I can do. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
User Jytdog (talk) Your attempt to archive and close down this discussion are premature. You don't get to unilaterally shut down discussions on talk pages you dont like and for no reason. This is very high-handed and unreasonable behaviour. Keith Johnston (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
In short
This white privilege thing is never quantified. Apparently can't be measured. All we're offered are stats on income and similar non sequiturs. The only possible reason for difference in income is obviously white privilege, and we can see that it is in fact white privilege because Asians are kicking everyone's ass in this regard. Also, O. J. Simpson apparently has white privilege, as do other wealthy and well-connected people of all races. So, besides requiring a leap into faith and lacking logic or supporting data, the hypothesis of white privilege appears to be in stark contrast with reality. Which, to be honest, is a common theme in postmodernist "thinking." Fun fact - Peter Boghossian recently exposed postmodernism for the umpteenth time in the latest Sokal-style hoax, where he and his colleagues got a bunch of nonsensical papers published in postmodernist journals, even getting some awards if I remember correctly. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Sokal-Squared-Is-Huge/244714 And the pomo generator has been online for years. www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/ I really can't believe we're still flogging the dead postmodernist horse that was stillborn to begin with. Nikolaneberemed (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Nikolaneberemed (talk) would you like to propose any specific changes to this page? Given its controversial nature every change needs to be accompanied with RS that editors with different political viewpoints can agree is RS, even if we don't agree with the conclusions of the RS. Keith Johnston (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
User Jytdog (talk) once again your attempt to shut down a productive discussion by archiving it prematurely are invalid. this is very disrespectful to editors.