Talk:White privilege

Opinion vs. fact

Thread retitled from White privilege is opinion and not a proven fact. WP:TALKHEADPOV

It should be noted throughout the article that white privilege is a theory or the opinion of some and not a proven fact. Yes there are countless editorials and opinions about the topic, but very little factual data. For wikipedia to remain true to its mission it shouldn't be pushing one groups ideology. 146.168.64.10 (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is well sourced referencing multiple studies. I see no editorials in the cites. You have provided no contrary studies. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

White privilege is a sociological concept. Studies about the sociologcial concept do not change that it is a concept. This article is deceptive by failing to identify it as a concept. This is a basic definitional lapse not addressed by any studies. Either clearly define white privilege as discussed in studies or don't but don't pretend the studies change the very meaning of a concept. Mfs2024 (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Please see the Archives, this has been discussed to death. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

If white privilege exists, then...

We are not here to answer questions about the article topic, per WP:FORUM. This is not a place for either homework answers, or debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

At what specific skin tone does it kick in? Or is the privilege graded, with say, an Italian enjoying less of it than an Irishman? Does a black albino person enjoy white privilege?

Perhaps the article could seek to answer these questions. As an "olive" type with mixed ancestry I'm not quite sure where I stand. Thanks. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that discuss this issue? Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

When I was young, in a city where blacks were not allowed in white public schools, the public swimming pool, or on our side of the tracks after sundown; our black maid's skin looked white but was badly scared. This was due to her efforts to bleach her skin white to lift herself out of the situation blacks were forced to endure. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Not here to dispute the historical mistreatment of black folks. I was hoping that, here in 2024, I might find answers regarding my level of privilege. As someone who may or may not be "of color". Gene Stanley1 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, much as my response sounded forumy; this is not a forum and that specific a question is not possible to answer anywhere. If you have a suggestion about an addition; you are welcome to provide reliable sources for that addition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Readability issues

I just made a bunch of edits to this article for readability. Although this article was very well researched, it did not present the information in a way that was easy to read, because it listed the names and sources of so many authors ad infinitum, often followed by airy and far-fetched language and blockquotes. As if the article was a catalog of books for sale, rather than an encyclopedia article. It also had lots of unnecessary sub-sections which often contained just one or two quotes from the same author (often Lawrence Blum), which seemed undue.

So, I just converted this to WP:PLAINENGLISH and organized it so that that the reader can digest it better. I'm leaving this here since I did delete a lot of characters in my edits, which looks kinda sus, but I'm sure most will agree that this was okay. Sgt. Packer (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

But of course, my own writing abilities are far from great, and we're sometimes inclined to ignore our own faults, so I'm also encouraging others to make improvements where I did not. Sgt. Packer (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest but I think you cut a bit too deep in a few places. That being said I do like some of your inclusions further down that look like they were previously missed. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Simon! You're probably right that I cut a bit too deep, I'm keeping all my edits in tabs and reviewing the most subtractive for things that I can re-add in a condensed way. If you don't do that first, that is. All my edits are a work in progress. Sgt. Packer (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Concepts are not facts

(Copyright violation removed)

Here is an excellent source for a definition of White Privilege. Feel free to use it. White privilege (sociological concept) Feel free to borrow from this article to help improve Wikipedias content. There is alot more detail in that page which offers real insight rather than ideology. 170.103.57.217 (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Its not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Lord Slater (per the title on your page), Your opinion that Grokopedia is not a RS does not make it so. It is from a documented information site that, incidentally, is gaining more traffic from Wikipedia due to is lack of adherence to far left ideology.See the NY Time article. Grokopedia is as relevant as Wikipedia without the ideology. 170.103.57.217 (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Your opinion that it is RS does not make it so. Here is a lengthy discussion on this absurd "source" that doesn't even agree with its own citations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Its curious that discussion implies Wikipedia is a neutral source for information when it's clearly not. 170.103.57.217 (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

How is it nonneutral? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

you have unconscious bias... It's a creation by white people so it must be racist. Isn't that how white privilege works? Wiki is white privilege and racist? Of course not, but that's white privilege logic for ya. ~2025-35792-09 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

No one claimed any such thing. Strawman arguments are not constructive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Saying that Grokipedia "offers real insight rather than ideology" with a straight face is one of the most brutal self-owns I've ever read. Tis a shame you can't grok how. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

You have to admit this white privilege page favors one specific ideology. 170.103.57.217 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

What ideology does it favor? I would say that racist ideology does not come across as virtuous; if that's what you mean. But the article defines white privilege and provides the history. It isn't, itself, pushing a point of view. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Saying white privilege is a fact rather than a concept or opinion is agreeing with an ideology. 170.103.57.217 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

We use reliable sources. Difficult to imagine that anyone does not know this is true as well as verifiable. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Why would I 'have to admit' something that's bullshit? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

No it’s not BS, there really is a privilege set, whether you call it white, I don’t think so!

I think it’s more of the mighty than thou attitude that some folks have.

growing up as an under privileged white catholic in a Protestant section of Northern Ireland, I too witnessed that those with that privileged attitude and after emigrating to the US, the faces changed, but the attitudes were the same. ~2026-14813-1 (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This is an encylopedia, not your personal blog. We really couldn't care less what your thoughts are on this, or any other topic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)