User talk:Wehpudicabok/Privilege (rewrite)

I've decided to attempt to rewrite this article. I'm not going to propose anything until I've reached a version I like though. 09:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I also think I'm gonna go ahead and start the article that I proposed recently, social justice movement on Tumblr; it does go really well with this topic. Not tonight though. 10:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to it. I still consider myself to be generally confused and the internet (well, some parts of it) isn't helping. Nullahnung (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, dig that active voice. Seven years later I still remember my lit teacher hammering in "active voice" over and over.   10:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As a scientist I cannot stand the active voice and have never figured out why teachers hammer it into you. But if you want to see when a re-write of this was definitely needed, look by to the earliest versions where the article actually forgot to explain what it actually was and just listed "this is privilege!!". Not that that re-write helped. There's still an equal amount of talkpage activity misunderstanding and taking issue with it. Now, if you can break it down to a 5th-grade reading level, that'd be grand. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 10:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need to convince all the 5th grade fence sitters! (seriously, though, we should try to explain as much as possible without sounding patronizing. I know this wiki thrives on snark, but I'd minimise it in this case)
 * My academic writing class had a teacher who generally discouraged us from using passive voice and encouraged active voice, though she did say that they both have their place. Nullahnung (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The trouble with trying to convince people using an article is that it assumes that the article will be read.  10:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a point. However, I have been very wary of linking RW articles in the past because they are somewhat grating to first-time readers of RW. They seem more like articles written for sceptics by snarky sceptics than articles written to educate (and I know that the mob is okay with that, I'm just saying I don't feel comfortable linking those to people I'm trying to convince). As in, I have been tempted to link RW articles in discussions, but decided against it because I didn't feel that it would help my case. Nullahnung (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)