Talk:White privilege

Opinion vs. fact

Template:Old heading 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)

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...

Template:Hat 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)