This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Template:WikiEd banner shell

"White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances."

This is incredibly offensive, with no basis in fact. It should be described as a concept or idea, not a universally accepted truth. Johnallenmartin (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

factual per WP:LEAD, see main body for references, for example: "White privilege is a social phenomenon.^[1] Although the definition of "white privilege" has been somewhat fluid, it is generally agreed to refer to the implicit or systemic advantages that people who are deemed white have relative to people who are not deemed white; it is the absence of suspicion and other negative reactions that white people experience."^[2]

Acousmana (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a general problem in Wikipedia associated with articles about abstract concepts regarding controversial issues. There's an assumption that because reliable sources say the abstraction represents reality that the abstraction does in fact represent reality. This is epistemic hubris. Teishin (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no conspiracy, you can, using WP:RS, offer an alternative epistemic frame. Acousmana (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether white privilege should be described as a "concept" or a "phenomenon" was discussed at length in an RfC a year ago, and the consensus was that it's a "phenomenon", that is, that it indisputably exists, based on RS. See [1]. NightHeron (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, but without some high level RS challenging the existence of this we cannot act as if it is in fact controversial. Just because some right-wing pundits think it is does not man it is academically.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is "high level"? This seems to me to indicate that only scholarly peer reviewed sources are acceptable and that social consensus means nothing. There is more than enough criticism in wider social discourse that debates the existence or extent of white privilege. Further, the system of peer review has enough issues that suggesting that peer reviewed sources are automatically rock-solid is incorrect. It is saddening that the article is essentially now blocked off from even mentioning such criticism or providing the opportunity for such criticism and/or it's introduction to be discussed. Such criticism would tend to indicate that white privilege "indisputably exist(ing)" would, it follows, be incorrect. It is not a universal concept. Thanks. PS: I am not right wing or even conservative myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.12.34 (talk) 07:55, June 21, 2021 (UTC)

"High level" means "highly trustworthy". That would include peer-reviewed scholarly sources, but not necessarily be limited to them in this case.

It is saddening that the article is essentially now blocked off from even mentioning such criticism or providing the opportunity for such criticism and/or it's introduction to be discussed. The only criticism which has been made has been the personal criticism of countless anonymous people on the internet, which is blocked off from being mentioned by literally every single article we have per our policy of No Original Research.

It's an extremely valuable policy, as it undercuts arguments like your which imply that some random IP is more trustworthy than widely-acknowledged experts and journalists. Not that such a ridiculous implication needs to be undercut, but it helps cut down on the sealioning and POV pushing a bit.

P.S. Anyone who feels the need to claim not to be right-wing while defending right-wing claims is certainly right-wing, in my experience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do we determine "social consensus", without resorting to wp:or?Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since the popular press is a reflection of social attitudes, a broader "social" consensus could be arrived at by examining the popular press, eliminating unreliable examples, and then taking a read of what the reliable examples of the popular press say. Which sounds vaguely familiar... Almost as if we're doing that already... Hmmmm... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still OR, as we cannot read ALL popular press, rather we should go with what RS say about the broader "social" consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saving this diff. I want there to be a record of the time Slater claimed that summarizing the viewpoints of reliable sources is OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I said, what I said is we can't say that there is a consensus unless we have read (and can demonstrate we have read) all of the sources. If we judge a "connsensus" on a sample of sources that is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's even worse than calling summarizing the views of RSes OR. Now you're claiming that we can't make any statements in wikivoice or describe any topic without attribution unless we've read every possible source about it. You'd better get started on applying that standard, as there are 6 million articles we haven't done it to, and even fixing one article could take a lifetime. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"rather we should go with what RS say about the broader "social" consensus"", the clue is in the words I used.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for you to realize that's exactly what I described, instead of inventing reasons to argue with me. Not sure how long I'll be waiting though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then we can drop this, as we both agree.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Slatersteven, that is not OR, that is WP:CHERRYPICKING, which is not admissible either as it's an error in determining WP:DUE WEIGHT, but hardly OR. When there's a bounty of sources and you can't check them all to determine majority, minority, or fringe status, then sometimes tallying tertiary sources is a good proxy for the totality of secondary sources, and one could try that. Mathglot (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I have seen 3 sources that say X so all sources must say X" is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not unanimity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it does have to be reasoanbly a lot (and preferbly as majority), at least enough for any resoanble person to think "this might be the majority".Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the presumption is that this, being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, if an article doesn't reflect the actual consensus of the sources, someone will show up with reliable sources to correct that. We can't not write articles just because we haven't read every source possible, so we write based on the sources we have, and improve as new sources are brought in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem to be looking for a disagreement were none exists.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Countless" people (your own term) disagree with you and the "widely-acknowledged experts and journalists" (I note that you never referenced any of them). Surely then the "countless" (emphasis yours) consensus outweighs the non-defined experts here then? Which means that it is a sociological theory rather than a fact? Thanks for exposing your complete lack of neutrality by the way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.12.34 (talk) 16:42, June 21, 2021 (UTC)

See wp:undue, no one expert's opinion outweighs all the passengers on the Clapham omnibus. Even if it did not, consensus does not mean many it means a general (I.E. most people) agree. How do you even go about showing that?Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)First off, please sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end (~~~~) every time you post to a talk page.

Second, if those countless people have got the slightest clue what they're talking about, there should be some reflection of their view in reliable sources. So go find some of those. We certainly aren't going to simply take your word for it.

Third, the sources I mentioned are cited right there in the article. Yeesh, it's only one click away, are you really that incapable of looking for yourself?

Fourth, my third point doesn't include the five fucking sources that Acousmana listed right here in this very discussion. I mean, holy cow, would those be easy to find if you'd just look at the discussion instead of proceeding straight to whining about not getting your way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, can we keep this discussion civil please? Using expletives just deteriorates the whole conversation. Secondly, the "countless" claim was yours, not mine. It's in black and white and saved. Thirdly, I haven't made any claims nor have I asked for any sources (indeed check my original post), I'm asking to be able to make those claims. Fourth, if I can provide evidence that white privilege is socially disputed and provided evidence, that would be reflected in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.12.34 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Regarding "Fourth", a lot of things are socially disputed, such as anthropogenic climate change, mask-wearing during a pandemic, evolution of species, and the result of the US presidential election last year. NightHeron (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to this. It has to be disputed by recognized experts and respected journalists, not random people. And even with evidence of this, if it's just a minority who dispute it, our article must reflect that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What edit do you want to make, and which sources do you wish to use?Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that I never referenced any experts, you also claimed these experts were "non-defined". I pointed out that numerous experts have been referenced by the article and in this very discussion (which, by necessity, defines who they are), obviating the need for me to continue to point them out.

You claimed there's a "social consensus" that you strongly implied contradicts the views of the experts.

And I don't understand why you're whining about my use of the word "countless". I never claimed I didn't use it, didn't attribute it to you, and still stand by my use of it.

Also, if you don't like four letter words, you should probably get off the fucking internet. The whole thing is a cesspool. Ever heard of "two girls one cup"? If not, you're lucky. Don't google it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a reference I was expecting to see today. And I was happy to have forgotten about it until now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say as I really blame you on that. Also goatse. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the talk archives, I see a number of opinion-based arguments saying that white privilege unequivocally exists but without citing specific evidence to that effect from a RS. I also see quite a lot of people contesting that assertion saying that white privilege is just a belief or an idea that people use to describe their world view. The first sentence in this article reads:

White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

Yet there is no citation and no reliable source that is provided to justify the matter of fact existence of white privilege the way it is being framed here. Can anyone suggest a reliable source that provides empirical evidence to support the strongly worded statement in this sentence? If not then we definitely have a NPOV problem with how this topic is being presented.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk • contribs) 19:54, April 7, 2021 (UTC)

There is no problem to fix here. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is a summary of cited article text. We don't need a cite for the first sentence, as it accurately summarizes the article. The consensus is clear that the topic exists. If you peruse the Talk page archives, you will see a January 2020 discussion that set Wikipedia consensus on the issue. To change that, you would need to start a new discussion, and argue more convincingly than the previous people. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide the RS that clearly shows empirical evidence for the existence of white privilege? After looking through the cited sources I see nothing that supports that statement. From the archived discussions I see that the majority opinion of editors participating in the discussion is that white privilege exists, however a fundamental tenant of WP:NPOV is to "Avoid stating opinions as facts." That is exactly what the first sentence appears to be doing. If I am missing some clear empirical evidence from a RS that proves causality of the purported societal benefits stemming from having light skin color I'd be happy to retract my concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Binksternet, per WP:LEAD:

The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

So it's not correct to say that there is no need to cite the first sentence. As you can see in numerous ongoing examples from the talk section, this statement is challenged on a regular basis so it is disingenuous to claim that there is no need to support the first statement with evidence from a RS. The seminal paper on this topic is Peggy McIntosh's papers on the Invisible Knapsack which presupposes the existence of white privilege without any attempt to show that or prove causality between the listed privileges and having light colored skin. The same problem exists for every every RS cited in this article. No one is disputing that there are people who believe that white privilege exists, but that does not mean that there is any evidence that it does exist. By this low standard we should update the lead for God to say that God is the one true almighty creator of the universe because there are a lot of people who believe that.

• I've added some refs from the definition section to the lead. That said, it's important to understand that while you're demanding RS that meet your (implied) standard for empirical evidence for the existence of white privilege, that isn't how Wikipedia works or the standard for the RSes we use for this sort of thing; our job is to summarize the conclusions of reliable sources, not to challenge their logic or conclusions. If high-quality peer-reviewed academic sources overwhelmingly treat it as fact (and they do, on the whole), then we have to do the same thing - arguing "but these papers don't convince me; they just say it's true!" isn't a sufficient objection. In fact, having a broad swath of papers treating something as unexceptionally true is a strong argument for us to do the same in the article voice. We're an encyclopedia, not a debate society - we just summarize the broad currently-accepted views among reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree with you more. What I am saying is that the none of the sources you have cited show any sort of evidence for the existence of white privilege. If the intent is to summarize the RS then it would be entirely accurate to say that many people believe white privilege exists. Peggy McIntosh believes it exists, her essay presupposes its existence and presents it as pure conjecture. Robert Jensen says that the phenomenon exists by saying it's complex (this is analogous to someone saying "God works in mysterious ways" as a RS for the existence of God). Tim Wise points out that poor white people exist, which certainly suggests that many of the privileges may have more to do with wealth rather than skin color. The reference by Fenwick Wise states that "Some educational researchers today have called this phenomenon 'white privilege'". This citation is just a weasel word once removed. It would be entirely accurate to call white privilege a belief or an idea or more accurately from an academic perspective conjecture, a hypothesis if we're feeling generous. As it reads now, the first sentence is misleading readers by presenting opinion as if it were a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk • contribs)

Quite the opposite, actually. Nearly all of the sources treat white privilege as a fact. So stop with your assertions to the contrary. Without comparing an exhaustive list of sources, you have no leverage in your argument. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am not disputing the fact that there are people who believe that white privilege exists. I'm disputing the fact that there is any empirical evidence to support that belief. I have read every source for this article in its entirety. If you feel that I have missed a source which provides empirical evidence demonstrating the existence of white privilege scientifically please point to the specific RS so I can revisit the source and we can factor that into this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk • contribs)

Then go get yourself into academia and publish your research. Until then, ciao. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

75.166.150.117, if you were to look around the serious literature on the topic, you would find innumerable citations about the existence of white privilege. To take only one of countless examples, the difference in how phone calls to real-estate agents from apartment- or house-seekers are handled from the identical callers, depending whether they give a name over the phone that "sounds white", or doesn't.

As far as whether citations are required in the lead, there is neither a requirement for it, nor a proscription against it, and for controversial issues, it may be appropriate to have such citations in the lead. On the other hand, it would make more sense to do that if there were an actual controversy about the existence of white privilege in reliable sources, and there isn't one. (If you think there is, please demonstrate it.)

There is no requirement for a Wikipedia article to please individual editors who come by and complain about their pet peeve without providing any evidence. I can't really determine if you are in earnest, but are poorly informed on the topic, but I have to tell you that right-wing trolls who show up at the article just to stir up trouble make some of the same points that you do. If you are the former rather than the latter, please demonstrate your bona fides by listing a number of highly reliable, secondary sources that back up what you say. (Trade journal surveys of the literature on discrimination and white privilege would be ideal; try scholar.google.com, and look for the words "review" or "survey".) If you cannot do this, then frankly, you're just wasting everybody's time; editors at Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers and there is no obligation for other editors to answer every one of your questions, or to respond endlessly to your opinions, in the absence of any additional resources brought to bear likely to lead to the improvement of the article. At some point, other editors will tire of responding to you, you won't have achieved consensus, and nothing will change at the article. In common parlance: you now need to put up, or shut up. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege" to "White privilege, or white skin privilege, is a theoretical societal privilege" Bigbaachus (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. We have discussed this issue thoroughly and have determined otherwise. See Talk:White_privilege/Archive_18#RFC for the past discussion. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising that this editor's only other edit was Sept. 2019 removing "The Journal editorial board has promoted pseudoscientific views on the science of climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos.^[1]" from the Wall Street Journal article. Doug Weller talk 06:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as “White Privilege”, it’s a fantasy conjured up by racists. This racist term should be removed immediately if anyone has any common sense left. 47.203.41.188 (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 188 published sources in this article would seem to disagree with you. In any case, if you'd like to request that this article be deleted, that would be a matter for WP:Articles for deletion. I wish you the best of luck. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:trim|1=

Note to Editor: The existing wording (in Change FROM) suggests white privilege is a fact not disputed by anyone, but this is not correct and critics of the concept would see the current text as unrepresentative of all views, therefore biased. The new text (in Change TO) has minor adjustments and an additional sentence to attempt to reflect supporters and critics views fairly wrt Rev. Martin Luther King. (my apologies for any formatting errors)

Change FROM:

White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.^[1][2] With roots in European colonialism and imperialism,^[3] and the Atlantic slave trade, white privilege has developed^[4] in circumstances that have broadly sought to protect white racial privileges,^[5] various national citizenships, and other rights or special benefits.^[6][7]

In the study of white privilege and its broader field of whiteness studies, both pioneered in the United States, academic perspectives such as critical race theory use the concept to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people.^[8]<ref>{{Cite book|last=Cole, Mike, 1946-

Change TO:

White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege that some people believe benefits white people over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. ^[1][2] Evolving within European colonialism and imperialism,^[3] and the Atlantic slave trade, the white privilege concept is thought to seek ^[4] to protect perceived white racial privileges,^[5] various national citizenships, and other rights or special benefits.^[6][7]

In the study of white privilege and its broader field of whiteness studies, which evolved in the United States, academic perspectives such as critical race theory use the concept to analyze the extent and degree that racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people and people of color.^[8]<ref>Cole, Mike, 1946-.

The concept of white privilege is controversial as it defines people by their skin color, effectively telling colored people they are victims and telling white people they are oppressors. Whereas many people believe all races should be treated equally, not differently, and should be judged against Rev. Martin Luther King's dream..."that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." <ref> Martin Luther King, Jr. Quotes About Character. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); line feed character in |last= at position 21 (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) Peterg52 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]