Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:12, 18 February 2016

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White privilege article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White privilege article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 16 October 2007, see discussion. Keep, 8 March 2005, see discussion.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Discrimination

I removed "Some indigenous Australians report incidents of discrimination by shopkeepers and real estate agents. " from the Australia section, as it does not address privilege in the way the concept is elucidated in the article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC).

SSCI2831

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Ontario Institute of Technology/Critical Race Theory (Winter 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

This articles neutrality needs to be improved, and therefore I thought that the following article White Privilege by Levine-Ransky could be beneficial to this article.

Houda.kanoun (talk)

NPOV

I agree with two other commenters above me. This article is highly biased, and essentially portrays white people as evil. This article should contain counterarguments to "white privilege." Don'tTreadOnMe177617761776 (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Don'tTreadOnMe177617761776

Could you provide specific instances or examples in which white people are portrayed as evil? Also, if you don't see any arguments against the concept of white privilege in the article, I don't think you're looking very hard. Try searching for the words "rejects" and "critiques", for starters. — MShabazz /_Stalk 00:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Though it doesn't say it plain, it does suggest that most of white people are criminals having intent to damage blacks' well-being. Whereas the only true privilege is to inherit better genes from parents. The article doesn't even mention the opinion that the concept is just giant fraud. You liars have been in power for decades, black-white difference is genetic and you can't remove it with AA or other policies. When Asian-Americans earn more than white Americans, it's OK. When Jewish Americans earn more than white non-Jewish Americans, it is OK. White Americans earn more than Black Americans, it is "Evidence" of something bad and measures must be taken... I wasn't born in the US but in Russia. There exists larger difference in income between Russians and African Americans that there is between white Americans and African Americans! These African Americans have access to large wellfare that I am not entitled to, it's US-born privilege, only they have to do is to avoid getting in prison, and even if Blacks get sentenced, it's not their fault but it's these evil racists didn't raise them properly... Alliumnsk (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Neutrality of the first paragraph

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 first paragraph of the lede is written under the assumption that White Privilege definitely exists. Over the past two years, several editors have tried to modify it to say that White Privilege is a concept derived from Critical Race Theory, and is not widely accepted in all fields, but these changes always have been reverted. Four examples are , , , and . I think this question should have input from the wider community: should the first paragraph be written in a way that says White Privilege definitely exists, or should it be qualified to indicate that not all fields accept the concept? 103.47.145.174 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages presents the concept as it is commonly defined by reliable sources. Saying what the concept is does not mean Misplaced Pages says it's real or correct, just that this is what others say about it. See ] for a good essay on the matter. That said, we did try to hash this out in the past: Talk:White_privilege/Archive_7#Theory_in_lede. I don't mind "theory" in the lead, but the RFC misstates the issue when it refers to how widely accepted it concept is and that Misplaced Pages is claiming it to be true. Given that the third paragraph of the lead is about the controversy of the concept, I think it's balanced enough and the issue raised in the RFC is a misunderstanding of what Misplaced Pages's voice and role are. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that defining White Privilege as "societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances" amounts to a pretty unequivocal statement that White people actually do experience these benefits when social and economic factors are adjusted for. I'm aware this has been discussed before, but the earlier discussion did not receive much outside attention. Let's see what uninvolved editors commenting in the RFC have to say. 103.47.145.174 (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article (as of 10:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)) certainly does appear to discuss "White privilege" as though it were an undeniable fact rather than a theory or opinion. I believe that first sentence needs to incorporate a word or two such as "theory," or "alleged, or "purported," or "believed by some" in order to present it in a neutral manner as called for by WP:NPOV.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't use "alleged" or "purported". See WP:ALLEGED. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Very well; let me modify my choice of words. I think a more neutral way to phrase the opening sentence would be:

• "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term used by some to suggest that there are societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances."

Richard27182 (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That still falls under WP:ALLEGED. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

With respect, Richard, I think you can see that that still fails to comply with WP:ALLEGED. Your trying to game the system is counterproductive here. Graham (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:  @Graham11:
With all due respect to both of you, I see no way that my revision in any way "games the system."  I have also reread WP:ALLEGED and I honestly see no violation.  I sincerely invite either or both of you to give me a specific written example of how I could have rewritten the sentence to represent it as opinion rather than absolute fact, without what you would consider running afoul of WP:ALLEGED or "gaming the system."
Richard27182 (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you're trying to show it as opinion. It's not. It's a social science theory. We don't treat similar topics in this manner. Again, saying something in Misplaced Pages's voice does not mean it's true or fact. It's a representation of how the topic or concept is represented and discussed by other sources. While I don't think you're trying to game the system, this is becoming tendentious. I'm fine with saying "theory" in the lead. I was fine with the older wording. But repeated attempts to make this "an opinion" are not okay. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The entire article, even the "criticism" section is pure propaganda and has no place in Misplaced Pages. Alliumnsk (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's a majority view of both reliable sources on the topic and, for what it's worth, possibly of the general public in the United States. See this text in the article:

According to Ella L. J. Edmondson Bell and Stella M. Nkomo "most scholars of race relations embrace the use of white privilege". Sociologists in the American Mosaic Project report widespread belief in the United States that "prejudice and discrimination create a form of white privilege." According to their 2003 poll this view was affirmed by 59% of white respondents, 83% of Blacks, and 84% of Hispanics.

The statistics you linked is not even a peer-reviewed article. It's a poll (random? convenience sample?) asking LOADED QUESTIONS which ask first about prejudice and discrimination (which are real things) and pushes people to opinion pollsters want to, it's a good example how to do frauds... Alliumnsk (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

To deepen the question, you can look at disciplinary statements from the American Sociological Association:

"Race serves as a basis for the distribution of social privileges and resources." (2003)

…and the American Anthropological Association:

"The 'racial' worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth." (1998)

In short, reliable sources say white privilege exists, and our task is not to append "so-called" to such claims, but to attribute the claims, while also present criticism of them.--Carwil (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You could make that argument about many different viewpoints. I'll quote what reliable sources in the field of personnel psychology say about race differences in job performance.

• Roth et al. 2003: "For Black–White comparisons, the overall results show a standardized ethnic group difference for job performance ratings of approximately one third of a standard deviation (when corrected for criterion reliability), and this is quite similar to Kraiger and Ford (1985)."

• McKay & McDaniel 2006: "Thus far, researchers know that, on average, Whites generally are judged to perform better on the job than their Black counterparts (Chung-Yan & Cronshaw, 2002; J. K. Ford, Kraiger, & Schechtman, 1986; Hauenstein, Sinclair, Robson, Quintella, & Donovan, 2003; Kraiger & Ford, 1985; Roth et al., 2003)."

• And later in the McKay paper: "Across criterion categories, Black–White mean differences in work performance are evident. For job performance, the differences are slightly more than one fourth of a standard deviation in magnitude, favoring Whites."

Note that neither of these sources discuss White Privilege as a possible explanation for race differences in job performance. They discuss many other possible explanations, but not that one. Also note that these papers are not single studies or primary sources; both of them are literature reviews. In the field of personnel psychology, every major literature review that's examined race and job performance has reached conclusions similar to these.

• The Comprehensive Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology (2005) goes even further. This chapter of the book states unequivocally that race differences in academic performance reflect differences in IQ (which could be caused by either genetics or environment). While the Roth and McKay papers are major literature reviews in the field of personnel psychology, this book is a major secondary source in the field of educational psychology.

I'm not suggesting the article actually should cite these sources. They don't directly discuss White Privilege (they completely ignore it as a potential explanation), so citing them in this article would possibly be original synthesis. I'm bringing them up to demonstrate that what you call the "majority view" is completely different depending on what field of research you're looking at. Given that the majority of reliable sources in other fields have reached different conclusions about the causes of racial inequalities, why do you think race relations in particular should have its conclusions presented as fact? 103.47.145.155 (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Citing secondary sources and position statements by major academic bodies seems be a good way of establishing a majority view though... or at least a mainstream one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What rot! This isn't your WP:SOAPBOX, it's supposed to be a discussion about the Misplaced Pages article about white privilege. The material you're quoting has no more relevance to this discussion than the fact that today's New York Times didn't mention white privilege. It's interesting trivia, but it has no bearing on this RfC.

If the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that deal with the relevant subject matter discuss white privilege as a real thing, and by all accounts they do, so should this article. If you don't agree, bring reliable sources of your own that deal with the relevant subject matter -- not some b.s. you pull out of your ass. 66.87.114.206 (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you define what sources are "relevant"? If the answer is that sources are only relevant if they use the term "White Privilege", or an equivalent term, then that's obviously going to skew the results towards sources that argue it exists. Usually, when a source takes the perspective that racial inequalities are due to something other than White Privilege (such as culture or IQ), it doesn't specifically say that white Privilege isn't the explanation. It just says that the inequalities are caused by some other factor or factors, as these sources do.

The point is that if one examines all of the sources (in many fields) that discuss the racial inequalities White Privilege is meant to explain, one finds that White Privilege is not by any means the only explanation offered for them. In order to say that the majority of relevant sources agree White Privilege is the cause, you have to define "relevant" in a way that specifically excludes all of the sources and fields of study that present alternative explanations. 103.47.145.136 (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The McKay paper also says that racial bias on the part of supervisors is one of the likely reasons why African-American employees are rated less favorably than white employees. Getting a slightly higher subjective performance rating from your boss, because of your boss' racial bias in favor of whites, is not proof that white people receive no benefit from being white. Also, neither "IQ" nor "intelligence" appears anywhere in the paper. (The "cognitive criteria" that it discusses is described in the paper as "training and job knowledge", which is very different from general intelligence.)

According to nearly all experts, "white privilege" definitely exists. Those that disagree form a small minority. (The critics often don't disagree with the idea that it's easier to be a white American than to be any other race; they disagree about things like whether "privilege" is the right way to describe the phenomenon or how to disentangle racial bias from class bias in a society that previously used socioeconomic means as a deliberate tool to suppress the economic prospects of former slaves.) Therefore, this article should treat it as a thing that definitely exists.

This is a bit of a tangent, but it might help: Privilege isn't only about race. You can be "privileged" in terms of race and "underprivileged" on every other scale: sex, money, age, education, health and disability, family situation, physical attractiveness, etc. You can have "white privilege" without having any other privilege or advantage at all, just like you can be non-white and have all the other privileges or advantages. "White privilege" does not mean that all whites are privileged in every way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, when I mentioned IQ I was referring to the 2005 book chapter I linked to, not to the two papers. And if you read the 2003 Roth paper, it emphasizes that race differences in job performance actually are somewhat larger when the performance measures are objective rather than subjective. Subjective measures evidently diminish the size of the performance gap, not increase it - in other words, this evidence suggests that subjective measures benefit blacks instead of whites.

In his reply above, EvergreenFir said that he wouldn't mind including the word "theory" in the lede. Would you object to that? The word "theory" does not necessarily mean a concept isn't widely-accepted. For example, that term is used in the first sentence of the General relativity article. (That article is a FA, so I am assuming that it complies with NPOV.) 103.47.145.175 (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see where exactly "theory" goes in the lead. While I'm not opposed to its use, it would mean the same thing as "academic perspectives." For example, we could have "critical race theory, whiteness studies, the sociology of racial stratification, and other academic fields use the concept of white privilege" but it would be obtuse to write "critical race theory, whiteness studies theories, the sociological theory of racial stratification, all use the theory of white privilege."

If "theory" is designed to leave room for doubt, we have this problem: there's really no doubt about the past existence of white privilege. If white privilege is the set of "societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances," essentially no one believes that this has always been an empty set. One can simply list things that were once exclusively granted to whites, such as (in the United States:) the right to become a naturalized citizen, the right to vote (in many states), freedom from hereditary enslavement, etc. The idea that WP never existed is WP:FRINGE.

What is actually subject to widespread public dispute is the continuation of white privilege beyond the de jure legal equality obtained in the mid-20th century (late 20th century for South Africa). That is, some argue that the set of societal privileges held by whites is now an empty set. This kind of factual disagreement is not well represented in the "critics" paragraph in the lead, and probably deserves a nod there. And perhaps there is also dispute as to whether this continuing set of social advantages form a coherent entity, something currently well-addressed in the lead.

Explain to me how "theory" would be inserted and how it would help.--Carwil (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm suggesting something along the lines of the 2013 version of the lede, although we don't have to follow it exactly. Something like this: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a sociological theory that is commonly used to help explain certain ethnicity-based inequalities. The term denotes both obvious and less obvious passive advantages that white persons may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice."

If that isn't acceptable to you, I'm open to suggestions on how to modify it.

I also agree that the "critics" paragraph should include a mention of the disagreement over whether White Privilege still exists in the Western world in the 21st century. I would suggest citing Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Race for the perspective that White Privilege no longer exists (although it obviously existed in the past). I'm a little surprised that Sowell is cited nowhere in this article, as he's one of the more prominent critics of the idea that White Privilege still exists. If you agree with the suggestion to cite Sowell in the lede, I can make a suggestion for that wording also. 103.47.145.172 (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The old version seems unnecessarily wordy and complex. It fails to say what "white privilege" means. Which need not imply that there's a lot of it around in the present. Compare Indenture#Historical usage: "An indenture is a legal contract between two parties, particularly for indentured labour…"

Also "is a theory" doesn't work so well, since WP is a term that is used within multiple theories for explaining racial inequality (if you want to know what I mean by that, skim p. 53-59 here: https://books.google.com/books?id=T7LcAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA53&dq=%22class+paradigm+of+race%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd1IzQ8-XJAhUG7D4KHb0IAvIQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22class%20paradigm%20of%20race%22&f=false. Both "is a term" (currently in the article), "is a concept" just work better. None of these three things are definitive for truth value, but I suspect you feel like "theory" suggests "unproven theory," whereas "term" and "concept" don't. I'm not sure I know how to help that.

I'm unequivocally opposed to removing "societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances." from the lead. But if you want to preface it with "those" or "the set of," that's okay with me.--Carwil (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, how about this: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a concept derived from critical race theory, denoting a set of societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances." In this case, the term "theory" is being used just in reference to CRT, and it uses the phrase that you say it's important to include.

Also, would you accept citing Sowell in the "criticism" paragraph? 103.47.145.135 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Per the article, the concept emerges from the New Left in the 1960s and 1970s, via Allen's use of "white skin privilege," but derives from critical writing by people of color, notably (here) W.E.B. Du Bois. This is well before critical race theory. See this survey of pre-1967 sources using "white privilege" in Google Books: Claude McKay in 1937, frequent use in the magazine Black World/Negro Digest, numerous 1960Ss studies on South Africa and European colonies in Africa.

I tried but failed to find an example of Sowell saying white privilege no longer exists, but I'm happy for you to add one.

Lastly, let's heed this advice from WP:LEADSENTENCE: "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition." "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."--Carwil (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, Sowell criticizes the idea that White Privilege still exists in his book Intellectuals and Race. In that book, he argues that present-day racial inequalities are the results of geographic differences in the areas where ethnic groups originated, and their long-term effects on each group's culture. He also argues that it's harmful for intellectuals to blame present-day inequalities on the more successful group, because that inhibits the less successful group's opportunities to improve their own prospects.

Here's another idea for the first sentence: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is sociological concept denoting a set of societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances." If you're opposed to removing everything after "societal privileges", I doubt I could make it much shorter than this. 103.47.145.179 (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? We're debating a form of racism on a Misplaced Pages talk page about that type of racism? The correct fix is to add the following template to the top of the article: Db-multiple|G1|G10|G11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AF4JM (talk • contribs)

Chapters and reorganisation

I've reorganised the article. There's now a lot more structure. The definitions are prominent, instead of put to the back. The aspects and critique are clearly organised. As for neutrality, the opening lines introduce the concept and it's context. It was just a matter of structuring it properly. The only change I made was to take out "Western countries" in the second paragraph because, "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" also does not refer to the West. Is the first line neutral? Well, it doesn't matter. There is no problem with the opening section confidently assert that this is a scholarly term. Nobody is going to understand it at first anyway. It's quite clear that there's criticism of the concept, so no need to worry about someone jumping to a rash conclusion. Travelmite (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I think your changes are an improvement, but we can still make the article better than it is. A few suggestions:

1: The wording of the first sentence still implies that White Privilege definitely exists in the present. This is why I think it's important for the first sentence to say that White Privilege "is a theory" or "is a concept".

2: It seems non-neutral to describe David Marcus as "a conservative critic", when we don't bring up the political orientation of any of the liberal commentators whose views we discuss. We should mention the political orientation of either all of them or for none of them (I suggest the latter).

3: I still think Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Race should be cited in this article, if not in the lede then at least in the body text.

If there are no objections, I'll make these changes myself sometime in the next few days. 103.47.145.181 (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

1. You oppose it, so be smart and cede the first line to the proponents. 2. If you read the article, David Marcus is writing as a conservative to other conservatives. That cannot be ignored, plus I used Marcus later to briefly indicate the attitude of conservatives. Politically orientation was already there, such as the Marxist critique. As a social issue, it may be helpful to also to know that McIntosh was informed by her feminism when writing the "Invisible Backpack", because she starts by talking about her observations on men. 3. Not sure what you have in mind, but the connection to "white privilege" should be solid. Travelmite (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The way the article describes critics of the concept also is a problem with respect to Shelby Steele. He is introduced as a "Conservative scholar and opponent of affirmative action programs". Apart from the question of neutrality, this also is a WP:SYNTHESIS problem. The cited ABC news article does not mention that Steele is a conservative or that he's an opponent of affirmative action, so this information presumably was gathered from unrelated sources about him. If the source we're citing for his views about White Privilege does not mention those things about him, we should not be mentioning them either.

You've argued below that there isn't currently a consensus for changing the first sentence, but let's see what opinions other uninvolved editors express in the RFC. 103.47.145.180 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

__________
Hello Travelmite.  I agree with much of what you wrote, but there are parts with which I must disagree.  But to start, let me say that I am in full agreement with you when you write:  "There is no problem with the opening section confidently assert that this is a scholarly term."  I believe there are abundant reliable sources to back up the fact that "White Privilege" is a scholarly term.  However I respectfully (but thoroughly) disagree with you when you write:  "Is the first line neutral? Well, it doesn't matter."  I believe it matters a great deal!  WP:NPOV clearly requires a neutral point of view "......which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias , all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources......"  And WP:NPOV provides no exemption for the first sentence of an article.  Indeed I believe that an article's lede is its most important part because it is the first part (sometimes the only part) that a reader will read.  And the first sentence is the most important of all because it sets the tone for the whole article; and for that reason I believe the first sentence should be totally free from even the appearance of bias.  I think that could be corrected in this article by a very minor change in wording, such as:

• White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the concept that there are  societal privileges  that benefit people identified as..........

I believe such a change would eliminate any trace of bias (or perceived bias) from the sentence, while preserving its otherwise excellent definition of the term.
Richard27182 (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, NPOV. Sometimes, its impossible for any of us to know that perfect middle point, so a bit of give and take is needed. When I wrote "It doesn't matter", I am speaking to the critics who argue that it's controversial. It won't matter to their critique if its called a term, notion, concept, claim or theory. I agree there exists opposition to it. But to try to force a watering-down the first line is just counter-productive for everyone, including the reader. Travelmite (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Travelmite.  With all due respect, I don't believe my proposal "waters down" the first sentence one iota.  I believe it takes an otherwise near perfect definition of "White Privilege" and removes a slight trace of bias from it.  Whether or not (and if so, to what degree) "White Privilege" exists today can be brought out in the main body of the article with reliable sources.  The lede (and especially the first sentence) should stick to simply defining it, without including the subtle editorial comment implying it definitely exists.  By the way I am one of those "critics who argue that it's controversial"; and it would make a significant difference to me if it were called a notion, concept, claim, or theory, rather than being presented right from the start as a fact.  You admit that the issue involves controversy; why would you want the article to take sides on that controversial issue right off the bat in the first sentence? 
Richard27182 (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There such a long discussion about it. There must be someone here who is objecting to it being changed? Look, let me put it this way. At the moment, you are thinking only in US current-affairs mode. In South Africa, white people once got an unequivocal privilege to vote, so that alone is probably enough to justify the wording. If there is a political proposal, fictional world or legal case involving or clearly allowing such privileges, it's also enough to justify the wording. I also checked also how it's handled in other articles. Provided there is an objector, I cannot see you overcoming this. But my advice to you, is that this isn't a battle worth fighting. It's not implied to the extent you think it is. Your time is better spent on finding some interesting scholarship instead. Travelmite (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Travelmite.
 I remain convinced that the article has serious WP:NPOV issues and, if I'm reading you correctly, you are just as convinced it does not.  I really do not believe there is any point in continuing our discussion since the only thing we're ever likely to be able to agree on is the fact that we disagree.
 Please note that other editors have also indicated the opinion that the article has neutrality problems; and in some cases using wording a lot stronger than mine.
 Your suggestion that " time is better spent on finding some interesting scholarship instead" has been noted.  However I do intend to continue actively participating in this RfC.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There is an insurmountable problem with your "refers to" wording, and it is documented in WP:REFERS. Someone might disagree over whether it exists (ditto for atoms, HIV, moon landings, and many other things), but those doubts don't change the fact that the article is about the "thing" rather than the "words". When Misplaced Pages discusses things, it says what they are (or are believed to be). The most direct, encyclopedic approach to the first sentence for any article that isn't actually about words as words is to think about the relevant dictionary definition, and to write "<name of article> is <definition>" – not "<name of article> refers to <some nebulous stuff related to the subject>". This gives you "an atom is (whatever the physicist say an atom is this decade)", "HIV is a virus", "A moon landing is when a person lands on the Moon", and "White privilege is a set of societal advantages that white people receive and non-white people (mostly) don't". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing.  I have read your message and also WP:REFERS.  And I would have no problem whatsoever with changing my proposed language for the first sentence from

• White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the concept that there are  societal privileges  that benefit people identified as..........

to

• White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the concept that there are  societal privileges  that benefit people identified as..........

If that was your only objection to my proposal(s), then I would say we were basically in agreement.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be more in keeping with the spirit of REFERS to say White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the set of societal privileges that benefit people identified as.... This is because white privilege actually is that particular set of privileges, whether or not anyone is actually receiving those privileges at the moment, just like HIV actually is a virus, whether or not it anyone actually is infected with it at the moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Going back to the RfC, the question was "should the first paragraph be written in a way that says White Privilege definitely exists, or should it be qualified to indicate that not all fields accept the concept?" I think we've reframed it a bit to saying "societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances" exist. There's overwhelming weight in the sources on this, particularly in the past (Apartheid, Jim Crow, Naturalization Act of 1790, each of which legally mandated certain privileges for whites) and present-day discrimination is well-established in RS (see Racism in the United States).

So, here's the challenge for those who want to change it. Show us the "fields" that reject the concept, and reliable sources that claim the present set of "societal privileges…" is zero. I'm more that willing to write them up, but I haven't seen that yet (nothing I read in Sowell differs from the list of conceptual criticisms, rather than denials, described later in the lead). So Richard27182, that would be interesting scholarship.--Carwil (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Carwil.
I appreciate your observations and remarks.  I am most willing to discuss them; but I do not intend to end up in another protracted discussion that goes absolutely nowhere as I did with Travelmite.  I have three points which I would like to make concerning the current version of the lede sentence:

• White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges  that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

1. The sentence is written in the present tense, indicating that "White privilege" exists in the present time.  Therefore I believe that all reliable sources used to back up that claim should be limited to those that refer to or describe present day conditions, events, or situations; not those of years, decades, or centuries ago.
2. I believe that the way the lede sentence is written would cause a reasonable person reading the sentence and taking it at face value to draw the conclusion that the article is claiming that "White privilege" automatically and every time confers its benefits on White people.  (ie, if you're White you can always count on getting the benefits.  Which I don't think anyone would seriously suggest.)    
3. As I've pointed out before, most sources that use the term "White Privilege" will tend to be supporting belief in the concept and maximizing its effect, while sources that refute the belief or minimize its effect will probably not be using that actual term. This will make it much easier to find RS's that support one side than RS's that support the other.  I'm not sure what the solution is to this problem; but I think it deserves very serious consideration when evaluating (including counting) reliable sources on each side of the issue.

I believe this RfC would benefit greatly if all of us would stop seeing this as a yes/no issue (ie, yes "White privilege" exists, or no it does not exist).  But rather determine the degree to which it exists in the present day and the extent to which it actually affects people's lives, and phrase the lede sentence to reflect that.  I cannot speak on behalf of other dissenting editors; but I myself would consider it a major step forward if, in the lede sentence, the word "benefit" were changed to "sometimes benefit."

Richard27182 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

1. It only indicates the term exists in the present tense
2. Agree or not, that's exactly what the proponents do suggest.
3. That makes no sense. It wouldn't happen, and we could do anything about it anyway.
4. We cannot determine the degree it exists. That's above the wiki editor pay-grade. Travelmite (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The present existence of racial stratification of privileges within society is the majority view of reliable sources (witness AAA, ASA above). It's also a majority view of the public, per polling cited in the page. Further, the questions of "degree" and "extent" that Richard27182 raises are in no way compromised by the opening sentence. Further, the "automatic" and "every time" questions are simply not implied by the sentence as worded.

White privilege is not the term for those privileges that sometimes benefit white people. It's a term for precisely those privileges that do benefit white people.

I am okay with inserting those, though:

• White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for those societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

Is that better?--Carwil (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I've seen this before, when someone is too invested, for too long on their preferred edit. As I read it, it just does not imply a confirmed present-day existence. It's just a way of analysis. If it's totally fallacious, bring out the critics. Travelmite (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"Is a term" is not appropriate. The article is about the privileges, not about the term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• RfC Comment: Responding after seeing this discussion mentioned on the front page talk section. On the subject of the RFC, the lede clearly identifies the topic as part of a certain theory. I look at something like strings, which is a part of String Theory -- a totally apolitical theory in physics, and I see that the lead discusses it in terms of the theory. The lede of that article does not spend time with the critical view of string theory, that's reserved for the main article. The article then procedes to explain strings as if they were accepted reality by all, as a fact. It's an article about strings, after all, so it explains strings in detail. In this article, the topic is a component of critical race theory. The lede identifies the subject as part of a theory, the article explains the topic. This subject has been politicized, and makes some people feel defensive (observe the above discussion!), so we've included critical viewpoints through the entire article, as well as the parent article. It is this personal and emotional need to respond that is the barrier to an encyclopedic article covering this topic, not the lede. If anything, the lede spends too much time discussing the criticism. On the RfC, my take is that the lede is fine if skewing to long because of all the careful treatment of criticism. -- GR Mule 21:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the lede does a more or less reasonable job of balancing opposing points of view, but with one objection.  I believe the second and third paragraphs should be reversed in order.  The fact that there are those who disagree with the concept should be mentioned a lot sooner (like right after the first paragraph).
Richard27182 (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone put a citation tag on "pro-equality" critiques. The edit summary is "There are no "pro-equality academics" criticizing WP in the cited article, just Bill O'Reilly, an anonymous e-mail writer, and a college freshman". So specious! 199.168.113.216 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated to the RfC

This is unrelated to the RfC, but there is a wiki syntax error of some sort that is causing an "Invalid <ref> tag" error message to display in the Reference section. Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I have could correct this.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the error, but because this article is subject to pending changes and I'm not a registered editor, my edit needs to be reviewed by an autoconfirmed editor. 66.87.115.193 (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Shelby Steele

Can someone explain why this edit was reverted? The statement that Steele is a "Conservative scholar and opponent of affirmative action programs" is not supported by the ABC news article, so in the version that Pleonic reverted to this statement is entirely unsourced. Steele is a living person, so asserting this about him without a source is a BLP violation. For the article to make a connection between his criticism of White Privilege and his opposition to affirmative action, it also must be cited to a source making that connection. If no source connects those two things, for us to connect them ourselves is exactly the sort of thing that WP:SYNTHESIS tells us to avoid. 103.47.145.177 (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition

Shelby Steele should be identified. His Misplaced Pages page identifies him as a "a self-described 'black conservative'." who "opposes policies such as affirmative action." Likewise his professional profile page has him writing a first-person essay on "What does a conservative believe?"--Carwil (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This is more than mere juxtaposition. The statement in the article is insinuating that Steele disagrees with White Privilege because he's a conservative, and that maybe if he wasn't a conservative and didn't oppose affirmative action, he might not disagree with White Privilege either.

If you can't see the insinuation here, imagine if one of the people arguing for the existence of White Privilege were introduced as a "liberal who supports racial preferences in college admissions". Assume it's an exactly equivalent case, where that information about the person is verifiable, but is not mentioned in the source discussing their viewpoint about White Privilege. Would you approve of including details like that about all of the people arguing in favor of White Privilege, provided we can find reliable sources discussing their viewpoints in these other areas?

If you think that information should not be removed in Shelby's case, then similar details probably should be added about most of the liberal commentators, for the sake of consistency. 103.47.145.167 (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Shelby Steele puts his critique of White Privilege in a chapter-long critique of liberalism and political correctness, the opening chapter of his most recent book Shame: How America's Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country, which also situates him as a conservative. The opening sentence, "Not long ago I was the lone conservative at a panel discussion on race and politics…" On the second page, a summary of his views on affirmative action. If you'd like, we can cite that and avoid your synth concerns.--Carwil (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better to cite that book instead. Rather than just labeling him as an "affirmative action opponent", I also think we should briefly summarize his book's argument against affirmative action. If his views on affirmative action are relevant enough to be mentioned at all, they should also be relevant enough for us to explain how they relate to his views on White Privilege. 103.47.145.175 (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Carwil: So, are you going to make the change we've agreed on? I don't own a copy of Steele's book, so it would be more difficult for me to make the change than for you to do it. (Also, the article has pending changes enabled, so I can't make any edit unless a registered user approves it.) 103.47.145.162 (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Steele's argument in Shame is an argument against liberalism, which I've summarized (as it relates to White Privilege) in the lead. In this section (on Education), we have Steele as a critic of the material on white privilege in education. His argument on affirmative action could plausibly contribute to articles on that topic, but don't really belong here. I will see what I can add elsewhere in this article, but won't have time for a couple weeks.--Carwil (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on White privilege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130907064328/http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/Separate&Unequal.FR.pdf to http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/Separate&Unequal.FR.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

split proposal

I see that white privilege in the United States currently redirects to this article. Since it was previously brought up that this article is too US-centric, I think a good solution is to bring most of the detailed US-centric content into a new fork, leaving the article more globalized. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be a particularly American idea, and a particular type of American, to think about inequality in this way, because of the circumstances of that country. The point I was previously making is there's a lot of current affairs going in the US, and editors seem focused on that. One would think South African Apartheid would be better example, but that's history (or is it?). I sense that outside English-speaking countries, it's not much of a concept. I suggest keeping the article intact. Travelmite (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

acceptability of Huffington Post blogs as a source

Another editor has alleged that blogs from HP are "self-published sources". This AFAIK is not true. Random writers cannot submit their material to Huffington Post and get published -- they have to go through an editorial vetting process. According to Misplaced Pages:Blogs as sources: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer". Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, HP won a Pulitzer Prize in 2012. I don't think it's fair to call it a "self-publisher" in that context. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello.

My understanding is that past consensus has been that Huffington Post publishes both reliable and non-reliable content. Content published under Huffington's "The Blog" banner is not as reliable, depending on context. While it's not as bad as a random Wordpress blog, it doesn't undergo the same level of editorial oversight and fact-checking as their journalistic content. I could be wrong about this, so we'll see what RSN says. Even if the source is broadly usable, since Gina Crosley-Corcoran isn't a recognized expert in social issues, and the website listed there as hers is definitely a blog and not a usable source, I still think the paragraph will need to be rewritten somewhat. Since the article doesn't provide any context for who she is or why she is being quoted, using her perspective in the lead is confusing and not entirely neutral. There are many perspectives on white privilege, why was hers selected as the prime example? Grayfell (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Her piece was widely-read, shared, and has also been cited by more pieces in years subsequent-- and in turn, she summarizes academic viewpoints that are sometimes written in a dry tone for a more popular audience. Thus, her piece represents the standard "social justice / intersectionality" viewpoint that has come to be present in many social media articles. The emergence of the intersectionality theorists is partially described in the "history" section (which needs to be restructured), but the modern synthesis seemed cogently summarized by Crosley-Corcoran. Also, I will reinforce with more academic sources when I get back journal access. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this diff on RSN (I hope this link won't eventually break when RSN gets archived) is a useful summarization of WP:RS policy: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact . Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

i agree with Greyfell. The Huff Post "The Blog" banner is not reliable. The Blog banner is where opinion pieces go to push a POV. Her inclusion in the lead is confusing and the narrative serves a point of view that doesn't seem neutral. The inclusion in the lead only adds more clutter and nothing new to the page. --OoflyoO (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. As an essay it's a perfectly valid one, that's not my problem. I would like a more objective explanation of why specifics from her essay is being cited at length. Emphasizing one example based on a primary source seems arbitrary to me. Relying on subjective assessments for determining what to include is unavoidable, but we should still be very cautious about it. It was widely read (which needs to be verifiable) but popularity isn't the main threshold we should be using. "Unpacking the invisible knapsack" is definitely significant, so it would be simpler and more neutral to emphasize that, rather than one person's reaction. If the article had reliable secondary sources about Crosley-Corcoran's essay, that would address my concerns. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Even conservative sources (which I am going to add) discuss Crosley-Corcoran's essay. An americanthinker article called "the lies of white privilege" has the writer "dissect Gina Crosley-Corcoran’s arguments in favor of “white privilege”. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I still think the lead is better without the last paragraph. I don't see the point. Waiting for the objective explanation of why specifics from her essay is cited at length in the lead. OoflyoO (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I used her as a source in the lead to cogently summarize other academic writers' common viewpoints on intersectionality, the interrelationship between different types of oppression (Peggy McIntosh explicitly makes these connections in her Invisible Backpack essay), and why the existence of white poverty doesn't invalidate the concept of white privilege. I further fleshed out this discussion in the body by introducing Kimberle Crenshaw, one of the early pioneers of intersectionality analysis. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's sort of what I asked for, but I would not call American Thinker reliable, and I don't think the article would be improved by linking to it. I wouldn't use the site as a source for anything other than as a WP:PRIMARY, and even then... That article in particular is very badly written. After removing the blatant falsehoods it could be summed up as "nu uh!". The article does indicate that this is of wider significance, but can we find something a bit more reliable? Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Macklemore and Ryan Lewis' song White Privilege II

The hip hop duo released a single called White Privilege II (and discussing Black Lives Matter) on January 21. I feel this is very relevant for the article and probably why the article has been getting so much traffic lately. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"People" vs. "persons"

I've changed the use of the word "persons" to "people" throughout, except in direct quotations. "People" is the common English word for, well, people. "Persons" is a good and useful word in some contexts, to convey a specific meaning, but it's not common usage, and is jarring to read. -- The Anome (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

qualifications of experts or writers in sources

User:Curly Turkey removed the phrase "Pulitzer Prize winner" from the description of Vargas (the producer of White People), citing WP:PEACOCK. I don't think WP:PEACOCK applies in this case. WP:PEACOCK applies for things that are vague opinions or puffery adjectives and cannot be falsified. In this case, his Pulitzer Prize winner status is an objective fact, and is easy to verify, and is not a matter of opinion. I have restored the description. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Peacock is the correct label, but I don't think the Pulitzer mention is necessary here. Vargas (or should he be referred to as Antonio per Spanish naming customs?) won a Pulitzer for breaking news coverage, not for the documentary, and his larger body of work doesn't need to be specifically promoted. That info is available at his article with sources and context. Emphasizing the award here is similar to MOS:HONORIFICs or WP:CREDENTIALs. Those are factual, but they still don't belong outside of the subject's own article. Any awards won in connection to the documentary would be different, of course. Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked both project pages (including WP:CREDENTIALS) and AFAIK we're not calling him "Dr Vargas" or anything like that and we're not repeatedly using his Pulitzer Prize as a form of address. I only used it to introduce context and establish the authority of sources. I think that is part of WP:V? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, it's not exactly the same as credentials, but there is a parallel. It's providing some context, but it seems like maybe a distraction in this case. It's a potential cause for confusion over why he won the prize, since it was unrelated to the documentary and not clearly connected to this topic. I am also generally weary of awards being mentioned in passing, because it's so difficult to balance the promotional against the informational. By mentioning the journalist's prize, the article is subtly implying that the documentary is better than it otherwise would be, which is not Misplaced Pages's role. Grayfell (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What "context" does "prize-winning" give us? It serves to "promote the subject", which is both the spirit and letter of WP:PEACOCK. The prize has nothing to do with the context—it only fluffs some feathers, which is a wholly inappropriate thing to do in this article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and "award-winning" is one of the phrases explicitly cited as a no-no at WP:PEACOCK. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"Pulitzer Prize winning" is verifiable, as it refers to a specific set of prizes which he either did or did not win. His having won the prize is not information that needs to be imparted, but it is imparting verifiable information, so by my reading it's not exactly the letter of WP:PEACOCK. Spirit? Yes. It doesn't belong. That's the important part, right? Grayfell (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That is the important part, but it most certainly is in the letter of WP:PEACOCK—the "award-winning" language is right there in the list of words to watch. I would imagine we could source and verify any "award-winner" award. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I see what you are saying, but I don't agree. Hear me out: The example given at WP:PEACOCK is Bob Dylan being named to the Time 100. That's a specific accolade which is considered acceptable and appropriate. Merely saying he was a "defining figure of the 1960s" is not. Both of these examples are flattering. The problem is not just that they are both promotional, it's that one is promotional without being verifiable or informative as worded. While a source could be found for a specific award, if the award is specified, it's no longer a peacock. "Award winning" may sometimes be provable, but it's never disprovable. It could refer to any award imaginable. "Pulitzer Prize winning" is disprovable, as it refers to a specific and verifiable prize given by a known group. That's the difference. Grayfell (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to say Dylan was named to the Top 100 Whatever in the context of the "Reception & legacy" (or whatever) section of the Bob Dylan article. It would be totally inappropriate to say—in virtually any other context—"according Time-recognized Top 100 Important Person Bob Dylan ...". Misplaced Pages has no room for that peacockery, regardless of whether it can be sourced. The director's Pulitzer has its place—in the "Reception" section of the director's article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Curley Turkey's interpretation of WP:PEACOCK has consensus, and almost seems idiosyncratic. Reading the policy/guideline, it is clear to me that as part of "words to watch", it is about vague, unfalsifiable language. "Award-winning" could be attributed to anyone. "Pulitzer Prize winning" cannot. Also, I disagree, there are many contexts in which to discuss Bob Dylan's awards outside of his biography. I used Vargas' Pulitzer Prize to establish his authority as a source, i.e. so as to comply with WP:V (reliable sources). A Pulitzer Prize win would clearly establish the notability and authority of the director, even if it wasn't due to the documentary itself. For example, we often introduce the background of academic sources (so they are not random last names), even if their tenure or appointment doesn't relate to the current article at hand.

Also, I think we're misinterpreting WP:CREDENTIALS, which is mainly addressing repetitive forms of address. It is okay to mention for example, a certain academic source's credentials (or Nobel Prize wins, etc.), while discussing a topic they are authoritative on, just as long as we're not calling him or her "doctor" throughout the whole article. For example, Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his theory of electron bonding, not for his advocacy of Vitamin C megadosing. But it would seem very relevant to note Linus Pauling's Nobel Prize winner status at least once in the article on Vitamin C megadosing for readers who are uninformed about his role in the history of chemistry, but are trying to find out more about the practice. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC) note, I did just edit and reshuffle the sections in the megadosing article and used Linus Pauling in the lead, but even before I edited it, Linus Pauling's Nobel Prize had already been mentioned in the following context: In the 1960s, the Nobel-Prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling, after contact with Irwin Stone, began actively promoting vitamin C as a means to greatly improve human health and resistance to disease.

I don't think Curley Turkey's interpretation of WP:PEACOCK has consensus—then you'll have to take it up at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch, as the exact wording "award-winning" is explicitly on the list of "peacock" phrases to avoid. I've left a message there. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but "award winning" is very different from "Pulitzer Prize winner". I think it a rather disingenuous sleight of hand to associate the two. "Award winning" is bad because it is vague, unfalsifiable and doesn't name a specific award. I have no idea why you keep using this comparison.Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"Award winning" is unfalsifiable? That's absurd. I have no idea why you think this fluff is in any way appropriate. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Puffery is defined at wp:Peacock in terms of vagueness. The rule there states "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." Pulitzer Prize meets the criteria of facts that demonstrate importance. each category gets one winner a year for the entire USA. Rjensen (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, wonderful, so now we'll see award winners anointed with these pseudo-titles wherever they are mentioned throughout Misplaced Pages? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a new thing. We shouldn't be relying on the manual of style for this, anyway. This is fundamentally based on WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, which are core policies. This requires a more nuanced interpretation with more room for disagreement. Pauling's connection to the vitamin C thing is not the same as Vargas's connection to white privilege, so we have to go case-by-case. I see nothing surprising about this. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The argument isn't whether to mention Vargas or the film, but whether to fluff up the director by advertising an unrelated award. Are we going to use the formula "the Nobel Prize-winning American author Ernest Hemingway" every time Hemingway is mentioned? The arguments above would suggest that's just fine & dandy. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A Pulitzer Prize isn't fluff. Most laypeople reading Vitamin C may not know about Linus Pauling. Most people reading white privilege may not know about Vargas' background. Or for that matter, Kimberle Crenshaw's, which is why I also introduced her as appropriate in the article. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yanping Nora Soong: Did I say a Pulitzer Prize is fluff? Please respond to what I wrote, not your straw man. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I quote: The argument isn't whether to mention Vargas or the film, but whether to fluff up the director by advertising an unrelated award. But you're picking on just the first sentence of my response. I'm trying to build an encyclopedia. We've already established that the WP:MOS doesn't apply here, and that WP:SYNTH doesn't apply because Vargas' award is directly mentioned in the sources we're using (Zimmerman and Hsu's reviews, among others we might include). If the sources mention his Pulitzer Prize in their reviews, why is it wrong to also include it as well? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopaedia, not a fluffy magazine article. The Pulitzer has zero relevance to the context and can only serve to fluff up the director. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but our sources don't think so. Are you a reliable source, Curly Turkey? Do you have an academic article on white privilege or white people published? Because numerous reviews mention his Pulitzer Prize. See the section below. If the sources mention his Pulitzer Prize, including especially in the opening header to their articles, why should we omit it? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Vargas' Pulitzer Prize mentions, straight from the horse's (or is it sources' ?) mouth

• The Daily Beast / Amy Zimmerman: In the controversial and eye-opening documentary White People, premiering July 22 on MTV, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jose Antonio Vargas explores whiteness in America. This is in the opening header to the article. The article then follows...."White People is the brainchild of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and activist Jose Antonio Vargas."
• HuffPost / Julia Craven: In Vargas' new documentary, "White People," which will air on MTV July 22, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist takes a simple approach: ask white people to think of themselves as such and acknowledge the historical implications that accompany their identity.
• MTV: Working on the new MTV documentary “White People” has sent Pulitzer Prize-winning filmmaker and journalist Jose Antonio Vargas all over the United States.

Just in case there was any doubt over whether this was like, you know, WP:SYNTH and all. Or fluffery. Or puffery. Or WP:PEACOCK. Cuz, idk, someone really thinks Vargas' Pulitzer Prize is irrelevant. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Holy Christ, but could the point go any farther over your head? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I am at a loss here. If the sources mention his Pulitzer Prize win, and we're using the sources in this article, why shouldn't we mention his Pulitzer Prize win? You haven't addressed this at all. You're saying this is fluffery. The sources (about the film!) that we're using do not.

Also, I will ask for further intervention from WP:ANI if you continue to stalk me and make personal attacks on me. Could I have some help from others here? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

inline comment tags (recentism, WP:DUE) etc.

Could we address them here rather than discussing through inline comments? Firstly, I don't think recentism is a problem per se-- firstly, there is a year (2015) in which to ground the discussion, and secondly, many many sources, including more conservative ones, discuss the recent changes in public perception of the concept of white privilege as a millenial or "recent" phenomenon, or one propagated by social media, but I used Hua Hsu's The New Yorker review as a way to coherently summarize this sentiment.

With regard to the second raised issue, I will note that the article is indeed very long (114 kb) and should probably be reorganized and forked off into subarticles at some point. This doesn't mean content should be removed, just eventually forked off to subarticles when they are created. I could use help in this process. The MTV show White People generated many reviews from many different sources, and a lot of discussion by many writers. I think it is in compliance with WP:DUE, especially as an abundance of sources referencing a film generally correlates with its notability and the importance of that viewpoint. Furthermore, what is the minority viewpoint that is being overrepresented? I also used discussions of the film in part, because this section is not only discussing the evolution of white privilege as a concept, but also its acceptance (or debate) by others outside academia, including white people themselves. Note that the section has specifically been organized and set aside for discussions of white privilege in the current social media era. I'm not sure what is more significant example of the transition of white privilege from a concept discussed in academia to a concept routinely talked about on social media / pop culture, than a widely-watched documentary on MTV. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to note that much from what I drew from the reviews wasn't really specific to the film itself, but to source common viewpoints in discussions of white privilege as well as its popular perceptions, especially among young people. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is this film given two paragraphs? It's not like there's any lack of literature on white privelege to use as sources—why focus so long and hard on this one film? Is it because it just came out and thus is fresh in the memory? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I would point out that the film has its own article, White People (film). — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Because this film is relatively recent, and therefore belongs in the "social media era" section, a section which among other things, describes the public perception of white privilege since 2010. I am not using the film in the lead. Please note the section it is in. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this film is given two paragraphs in this article. Please read WP:WEIGHT. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not quite true. The first paragraph citing reviews of the film really has nothing to do with the film at all, they just discuss white privilege and its perceptions in the year 2015. Yes, they are taken from reviews of the film, but that doesn't mean they are primarily about the film. For one, I bumped into these reviews of the film quite by accident while compiling sources on perceptions white privilege in the social media era. I eventually decided to address the content of the film directly as it also seemed relevant. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In other words, you either haven't read or haven't understood WP:WEIGHT. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

By what means are you arguing the additions are undue? You're citing a policy as a one-liner. Maybe it's time for others to chime in. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for you to consider why a recent film should have so much prominence in an article about a subject that is the subject of thousands of scholarly articles. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You're not actually making an argument against its removal or reduction, CT. This article has hundreds of paragraphs. The film just has one; the other paragraph you claim isn't about the film, it just uses reviews of the film as a source for general points on white privilege. I'm not only using the film as a primary source, I'm also using numerous secondary sources. Remember: the weight proportional to a topic or a point of view, depends on the number of reliable sources. In this case, I see hundreds of reliable, authoritative sources about the film, not only commenting about the film itself, but commenting about white privilege. Therefore I think having two paragraphs in an article having hundreds of paragraphs of content seems justified.

Please, please, use the sources. Have you actually read the sources? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I know a thing or three about sourcing, and it goes beyond merely reading them. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's address WP:WEIGHT one by one

I'd like CT to summarize his argument as to why having two paragraphs about White People (film) is undue. (It's one paragraph about the film really -- the preceding paragraph are just authoritative reviewers' statements on white privilege or its perceptions in 2015.) He keeps citing the policy WP:WEIGHT. Here, I will address WP:WEIGHT as follows:

• Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. In this case, from a quick google search, I see hundreds of reliable, authoritative sources about the film, not only commenting on the film, but commenting about white privilege, in addition to the film itself commenting on white privilege, and talking about the impact of the film, of which there at least a dozen of prestigious ones (including The New Yorker, TIME, etc.)
• Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Does White People (film) constitute a "minority viewpoint" or a "minority" aspect? Does the film disagree with Peggy McIntosh or Kimberle Crenshaw? It was released by MTV, a major television channel in the United States, and also worldwide, and was widely seen by millions of people, and also generated intense discussion. Also, it is in a subsection (within the article's section "history of the concept") dealing with contemporary history of white privilege as a concept in the social media era, i.e. since 2007. Do you know of any other television shows or other forms of media, or articles, with different viewpoints and which commanded more influence and should be getting more attention? I would love for them to be included. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Mid-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles