Talk:Whiteness studies
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Whiteness studies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily page views
|
Deep concerns over theory represented as fact.
[edit]No sources. No actionable suggestions. Just kvetching. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The lead, as well as the rest of this wildly flawed article, treat the conspiracy of "white privilege" as a fact. This is horribly racist and not based in fact. The concept is only ever presented in reliable sources as a theory or an idea, and in no way represents actual scientific sources. As an expert, I propose we obey the rules of WP:NPOV and not represent this racist conspiracy theory as fact. I've started by adjusting the lead. Innican Soufou (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
|
WTF is white trash studies?
[edit]I think that at least needs a citation if such a thing actually exists 131.252.67.132 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I agree that there is something not quite right here. The phrase "white trash studies" appears in the lede but not in the body of the article, which is bad per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The phrase does not appear in the article White trash except once in the title of one of the sources. The only thing that makes me hesitant to remove it is that it has been in the article since November 2019. Maybe it means something to somebody? Can anybody explain/clarify/reword this? If not, I propose removing it and adding White trash to the See Also list instead. DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per page 360 of the cited source:
...But whiteness studies did not originate solely with Morrison; in the late twentieth century, it had emerged as an academic discipline from two related but distinct scholarly threads: white trash studies and critical race studies. Although they both seemingly foreground whiteness, they offer whiteness studies different focuses, purposes, and effects.
White trash studies analyzes class issues associated with poor whites in the US. It takes its name from a pervasive cultural stereotype in order to undo that stereotype, much as queer studies embraces the term queer. White trash studies gained popularity in the 1980s and 1990s as a means of critiquing representations and misrepresentations of lower-class white culture...
[1]- This seems like useful context, so it should probably be explained, briefly, in the body of both this article and of white trash. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per page 360 of the cited source:
Criticism section
[edit]I flagged the article per the policy that criticism sections are generally not recommended. Whether or not this policy applies to ideologies, I can't say as they are often found in philosophy pages.
My main concern is that the section leads with criticisms from three figures known primarily for right-wing political commentary; the first (Horowitz) runs an anti-left watchdog site. Highlighting these very predictable criticisms obscures the more legitimate criticisms from qualified experts and actually skews the POV in favor of the field. It would be easy to come away from the article thinking that any criticism is just partisan whining. 2603:7081:1603:A300:E62B:4133:FEEE:6E66 (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't argue with your characterization of David Horowitz and Douglas Murray as partisan whiners, but I don't think you can dismiss the other two, Dagmar Myslinska [2] and Alastair Bonnett [3], in that way. In any case, feel free to suggest other sources and critics who are more credible than Horowitz and Murray. NightHeron (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia describes an ideology as "a set of beliefs or philosophies", so I would say that the subsection "Philosophy, religion, or politics" applies and it states that "For topics about a particular point of view (...) it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section". While I agree that leading the section with right-wing political commentary instead of academic analysis may not be the most informative approach, dismissing it entirely purely because of their partizanship would violate WP:PARTISAN. –Turaids (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the Whiteness studies page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Whiteness studies" page.
- C-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles
- C-Class history articles
- Low-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- C-Class Anthropology articles
- Low-importance Anthropology articles
- C-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Low-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- C-Class Europe articles
- Low-importance Europe articles
- WikiProject Europe articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles