![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
@ Spoonydude84 and Grayfell: I also like the Hopkins quote. Can we include some portion of it? Some other sections also have quotes. - Darouet ( talk) 21:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
completely arbitrary and disproportionate. It is surely not completely arbitrary, if the word "completely" has any meaning: Hopkins' commentary has been published elsewhere, and is very relevant to the "criticism" section of this page. It is unclear what you mean by "disproportionate," since I effectively asked you how much quote would be reasonable, in your view. Or are you saying that one sentence from Hopkins would be disproportionate? If so, what are the voices critical of identity politics that deserve a greater proportion in that section?
cherry-picking something to emphasize a specific perspective.If you can demonstrate that a more complete quote from Hopkins shows us that the proposed text significantly distorts the full meaning of his words, that would reveal cherry-picking. However, removing Hopkins' criticism from a "criticism" section of this page would appear to cherry-pick notable ideas out of the article. Like you I also support adding more academic sources to this article, but I don't think that removing Hopkins will help you with that work which needs to be done.
I have also raised related WP:SPA and WP:COI concerns at Talk:CJ Hopkins, which has overlapping editing patterns. The travelling IP addresses may or may not be related, but I think it is at least plausible they are Hopkins himself, based on this history. I don't know (or really care) whether or not Hopkins meets WP:NBIO, but we should be basing our assumptions about this person's importance on reliable, independent sources, same as always.
Nobody is denying that Hopkins exists, or that he has a Wikipedia article, or that he has expressed opinions about identity politics. This can be said about thousands of people. If the purpose of this quote was to indicate a notable criticism of the concept, this is a completely arbitrary way to do that, because there are thousands of possible sources for this topic. Yet again, why is this quote significant?
As for cherry-picking, the quote was chopped-up. It is not a contiguous quote, but samples from multiple disconnected paragraphs devoid of context. This is a very clear form of editorializing which violates both MOS:PMC and WP:NPOV. The essay was long (by Hopkins own admission) and choosing any one "quote" (or collection of different quotes, in this case) based only on the essay itself is subjective. If you think it's a fair summary of his point, so be it, but that's based only on your own opinion. If someone else comes along and said "this only makes sense if we include this part of the paragraph in the middle" there's no basis for disputing that, is there? Or someone like me can come along and say "this seems pointlessly sarcastic and self-indulgent, and doesn't belong at all" and there's no basis for disputing that, either. Why these quotes, and not some other selection?
These other outlets for the same source are mostly opinion outlets with limited editorial oversight. Hopkins' columns are sometimes re-published in some fringe outlets without modification. This is not a sign that this perspective is significant. An IP address chose the quote and added it because they liked it, but that's not a good enough reason for a neutral encyclopedia. If there is some reason to think this perspective is important, a better source can surely be found. Then, it would be much better to summarize in our own words, per MOS:QUOTE. If the quote is the best example of this perspective, a secondary source should be found which describes Hopkins take as useful, or significant, or even comments on it to say how wrong it is. Otherwise, who cares, and why should readers care? Grayfell ( talk) 00:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This [4] has been republished a number of places and has pretty clearly inspired people to come here and to his article, in part to attack an editor. Note that I've removed one such attack by an IP at the end of the last section. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
"To the extent that that view is noteworthy, we're already citing it to better sources". What
"view"are you referring to? Bus stop ( talk) 05:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Do others believe this constitutes a point of confusion or contradiction: Intersectional critiques
"Crenshaw applauds identity politics for bringing African Americans (and other non-white people), gays and lesbians, and other oppressed groups together in community and progress.[12] But she critiques it because 'it frequently conflates or ignores intragroup differences.'[12]"
Reading the above in addition to other statements on the page, I wonder if some were taken out of context or are in need of additional information from Crenshaw. Something is lost in identity politics, Crenshaw appears to believe. I take that to mean ignoring similarities or shared political interests across groups. However, is that described? Taken together, the quotes appear pertinent yet confusing. Also, what does "together in progress" mean? It seems a vague phrase if it means together for the purposes of progressive social justice organizing. Thoughts? -- PaulThePony ( talk) 16:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The content on this page summarizing and characterizing the criticisms of identity politics was narrow and academic and needed updating with the current and latest criticisms found in mainstream political criticism and reporting following the 2016 election cycle. My additions are aimed at doing that, with citation to the work of credible contemporary political commentators.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftdefense ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it particularly helpful to cite heavily biased figures such as Brenden O'Neil and Owen Jones in an article trying to be factual or balanced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DucksCourage ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The article introduces identity politics as: "Identity politics is a term that describes a political approach wherein people of a particular religion, race, social background, class or other identifying factor develop political agendas and organize based upon the interlocking systems of oppression that affect their lives and come from their various identities. Identity politics centers the lived experiences of those facing various systems of oppression to better understand the ways in which racial, economic, gender, and other forms of oppression are linked and to ensure that political agendas and political actions arising out of identity politics leave no one behind."
Even though the motive to organize based on group identity can be to combat discrimination and oppression, this is not necessarily the case. A different case of identity politics can for example be the Scottish National Party who seeks to appeal to the Scottish national identity. Identity politics is simply when a group of people organize politically to promote the interests of their own group. On this basis, I will change the definition in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastore Barracuda ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that the whole point of the concept of "identity politics" is that it focuses on identities rather than oppression or social problems in general. It appeals to people's instinctive racism. As an example, the BLM movement is not concerned about police shootings in general, but shootings of a particular group. And the statistics do not even really support that that group is more victimized than others. People have been historically very passionate about identities such as Catholics vs Protestants, but not very passionate about injustice such as rich vs poor. The lede does not bring that aspect out at all. Tuntable ( talk) 23:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
= i agree with those above that the opening paragraph is narrow in how identity politics is defined. this narrowness is evident in that the three citations listed all refer to one single instance of how the term has been used re Black feminist, Barbara Smith and the Combahee River Collective. identity politics is not the exclusive domain of "the oppressed," nor are its objects always to "leave no one behind." identity politics can constitute the core basis of the ideologies of "the oppressed" and "oppressors" alike. re TFD: "You cannot change the definition because that is how it is defined in the literature" – the three references cited in the opening paragraph are not representative of "the literature," they provide only one example of how the term has been applied in a very limited context, and they are redundant (not to be interpreted as PA on TFD, whose efforts here are much appreciated). re TFD's more recent comment, whatever the "originators" intended can go in the history section. moreover, what "originators" may have intended is likely irrelevant to how the term is used more broadly, both in the past and in the present. Thus, this aspect of broadness is what should be captured in the opening paragraph. I agree with other commenters that there is a need for further review and inclusion of better sources (but I have little to add in this regard). Such sources should include a wide canvassing of how the term has been used and applied in various contexts, and from these sources a broader definition can be synthesized. I think the opening paragraph needs to be revised to provide a more general definition of the term. I suggest something along the lines of the following would move in the direction of a more appropriate improvement: 'identity politics' is the way in which social movements — ethnic, religious, gender-related or otherwise culturally-based – become involved in politics to expand their identity claims (Schafer, H. 2004. Identity Politics and the Political Field: A Theoretical Approach to Modeling a ‘Field of Identity Politics.’ Raab, J. (ed.). New World Colors: Ethnicity, Belonging and Difference in the Americas. Tempe: Bilingual Press & Trier).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 600:1700:cdf0:6090:c94c:949:21f5:8472 ( talk) 14:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I think there should be a section on the civil rights movement in USA of the 50's and 60's.
It is probably the most famous identity political movement ever. GoldenSensei ( talk) 07:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
One paragraph begins "In 1998, political scientists Jeffrey Kaplan and Leonard Weinberg predicted that, by the late 20th-century,..." If they were predicting in 1998, they only had 1~3 years left in "the late 20th-century," which they were already in. Kdammers ( talk) 13:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
This is not a (proper) sentence: "Similar patterns appear in the 21st century are commonly referenced in popular culture,[59] and are increasingly analyzed in media and social commentary as an interconnected part of politics and society." 79.134.37.83 ( talk) 03:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@ StellarHalo: could you please elaborate on your reasons for adding the POV tag? Your edit summary was "heavily biased against the article subject with undue weight given to criticisms". It will be difficult for editors to evaluate and potentially work to fix such a non-specific grievance. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 02:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
StellarHalo, could you elaborate on your placement of the POV template? I'm not opposed to the tag placement if it meets requirements, but I don't see that it's yet been justified based on the requirements in the template usage notes as specified in bullets 1, 2, and 4 (serious issue identified; discouragement of drive-by tagging; prevalence in sources, not among WP editors). It shouldn't be up to other editors like Firefangledfeathers to have to request this information, it should be an inherent part of placement of the tag at the outset, based on your belief that there is "a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view". I don't see that that due diligence has happened, yet, as there is no current discussion about POV problems in the article on this page, just the sudden appearance of a tag out of nowhere.
One can discuss the possible defects of an article and options for improvement in a discussion without placement of a tag, and it sounds like you have two editors willing to do that already, and there are also another 400 editors watching this article who might be willing to participate. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 07:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we add more examples for identity politics and expand on the current examples? For example, we could also write about Asian, Hispanic, indigenous identity politics, and many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsx1 ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands, is deficient in the neutral tone that is required of Wikipedia articles, and requires improvement, so that it does not seem like as if Wikipedia is stating these points of view, but its sources. As mentioned above ("Identity is not just by oppression"), parts of the article read as "this is what x is", when it should read as "this is what y states that x is". Chantern15 ( talk) 04:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15
This article has some grade of left-wing bias due to perhaps its topic and the sources which the writers of this article have used, and I believe that there needs to be some balancing out with other viewpoints. Chantern15 ( talk) 04:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15 Even some of the criticism is from the left, this is not to say that this is wrong, but when taken within the context of the whole article, it definitely makes it seem like other viewpoints are being omitted. Chantern15 ( talk) 04:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15 As an example, so that it does not seem that I am nit-picking, there is mention of Anarcho-Primitivism which is a very obscure left-wing ideology, but right-wing ideologies are merely mentioned generally or in passing (such as right-wing populism). Chantern15 ( talk) 04:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15
Some groups have combined identity politics with Marxist social class analysis and class consciousness—the most notable example being the Black Panther Party—but this is not necessarily characteristic of the form. Another example is the group MOVE, which mixed Black nationalism with anarcho-primitivismwhich is not biased at all (it's a description of certain strands of IP) and is sourced. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 06:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The examples present seem incomplete, granted Wikipedia is not an exhaustive list, but many examples are from countries influenced by the Western Hemisphere directly (for ex. Maori Identity Politcs, New Zealand), other non-western examples would be appreciated, and it would certainly benefit the article if more examples are added. The examples perhaps need to be expanded on and combined at the same time. Such as, "Black Feminist Identity Politics" could be a sub-category under Gender, which currently reads more like a stub, and this would help expand it. Chantern15 ( talk) 04:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15
Under "LGBT issues", it states, "Some supporters of identity politics take stances based on Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's work (namely, "Can the Subaltern Speak?") and have described some forms of identity politics as strategic essentialism", this is vague language, especially near, "some supporters of identity politics" requires sources to back it up. Chantern15 ( talk) 04:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15
And additionally, "some forms of identity politics", which form of identity politics? Chantern15 ( talk) 04:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15
Strategic essentialism as a category was significantly influenced by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s presentation as a concept to challenge Western feminism’s historical complicity with imperialism.Which seems good enough to source the claim that "Some supporters of identity politics take stances based on Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's work ... and have described some forms of identity politics as strategic essentialism", right? -- Mvbaron ( talk) 07:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
One's identity is not just defined by oppression, a person who's identity gives them privilege and if they wish to maintain it is also part of identity politics. Chantern15 ( talk) 09:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15
Or if it imparts no benefit or loss either Chantern15 ( talk) 09:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15
We should strive to make this article more neutral. Chantern15 ( talk) 09:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15
Academic sources vs socialist sources is not a distinction that makes sense; the two categories obviously overlap. My concern is more that the lead does not accurately reflect the body but articulates a particular perspective. While some important self-described advocates of identity politics, such as the Combahee River Collective, take an intersectional approach that centres the lived experience of the oppressed in general within a redistributive/socialist framework, the term is often used to describe those who prioritise single identities (oppressed or not) over an intersectional approach or to describe those who prioritise the politics of recognition over the politics of redistribution, and this is the sense in which identity politics is often used as a derogatory word, which is not reflected in the lead at present. The lead should show the range of ways the term is used. The academic article Chantern15 cites is a good example of a text which neatly acknowledges the contradictory uses to which the term is put. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I had a go at a bold revision of the lead to make it more neutral and encyclopedic and better reflect the body, incorporating Chantern15's ref. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The sources appear to be reliable for the statements of the Combahee River Collective and Barbara Smith. (Monthly Review especially, which is a publication of some standing; the other source is a non-notable podcast series but the episode features Smith herself.) The question is more (a) is it DUE, and (b) are Smith and the Collective the best sources to use for making general encyclopedic claims about identity politics in Wikipedia's voice in the lead of the article. Those aren't questions for this noticeboard but for the article noticeboard.By "article noticeboard", I meant this talk page we're on now. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
References
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2016 and 27 April 2016. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Carolinaann94.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Tsupatterson. Peer reviewers:
Forclassaccount.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 22 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Devikajhaveri,
Hunerwithat.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The quote makes an important point about narrow interpretations of identity politics. I would, however, edit it for length and generality:
'Now, we have the politics of identity, which invites people to stay in, to look inward, to obsess over the body and the self, to surround themselves with a moral forcefield to protect their worldview—which has nothing to do with the world—from any questioning.
Chrismorey (
talk)
16:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I haven't formed an opinion yet on whether O'Neill's quote should be included ("undue weight" issue), but if it is in the article, it should be the full quote, not elided as suggested by Chrismorey. Schazjmd (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
In the socialist critique section, there is a short sentence on critique from the right. It may be sensible to move this to, or consolidate it into another section, or to expand on it under another header. Steinschmeißer ( talk) 15:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
@ Spoonydude84 and Grayfell: I also like the Hopkins quote. Can we include some portion of it? Some other sections also have quotes. - Darouet ( talk) 21:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
completely arbitrary and disproportionate. It is surely not completely arbitrary, if the word "completely" has any meaning: Hopkins' commentary has been published elsewhere, and is very relevant to the "criticism" section of this page. It is unclear what you mean by "disproportionate," since I effectively asked you how much quote would be reasonable, in your view. Or are you saying that one sentence from Hopkins would be disproportionate? If so, what are the voices critical of identity politics that deserve a greater proportion in that section?
cherry-picking something to emphasize a specific perspective.If you can demonstrate that a more complete quote from Hopkins shows us that the proposed text significantly distorts the full meaning of his words, that would reveal cherry-picking. However, removing Hopkins' criticism from a "criticism" section of this page would appear to cherry-pick notable ideas out of the article. Like you I also support adding more academic sources to this article, but I don't think that removing Hopkins will help you with that work which needs to be done.
I have also raised related WP:SPA and WP:COI concerns at Talk:CJ Hopkins, which has overlapping editing patterns. The travelling IP addresses may or may not be related, but I think it is at least plausible they are Hopkins himself, based on this history. I don't know (or really care) whether or not Hopkins meets WP:NBIO, but we should be basing our assumptions about this person's importance on reliable, independent sources, same as always.
Nobody is denying that Hopkins exists, or that he has a Wikipedia article, or that he has expressed opinions about identity politics. This can be said about thousands of people. If the purpose of this quote was to indicate a notable criticism of the concept, this is a completely arbitrary way to do that, because there are thousands of possible sources for this topic. Yet again, why is this quote significant?
As for cherry-picking, the quote was chopped-up. It is not a contiguous quote, but samples from multiple disconnected paragraphs devoid of context. This is a very clear form of editorializing which violates both MOS:PMC and WP:NPOV. The essay was long (by Hopkins own admission) and choosing any one "quote" (or collection of different quotes, in this case) based only on the essay itself is subjective. If you think it's a fair summary of his point, so be it, but that's based only on your own opinion. If someone else comes along and said "this only makes sense if we include this part of the paragraph in the middle" there's no basis for disputing that, is there? Or someone like me can come along and say "this seems pointlessly sarcastic and self-indulgent, and doesn't belong at all" and there's no basis for disputing that, either. Why these quotes, and not some other selection?
These other outlets for the same source are mostly opinion outlets with limited editorial oversight. Hopkins' columns are sometimes re-published in some fringe outlets without modification. This is not a sign that this perspective is significant. An IP address chose the quote and added it because they liked it, but that's not a good enough reason for a neutral encyclopedia. If there is some reason to think this perspective is important, a better source can surely be found. Then, it would be much better to summarize in our own words, per MOS:QUOTE. If the quote is the best example of this perspective, a secondary source should be found which describes Hopkins take as useful, or significant, or even comments on it to say how wrong it is. Otherwise, who cares, and why should readers care? Grayfell ( talk) 00:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This [4] has been republished a number of places and has pretty clearly inspired people to come here and to his article, in part to attack an editor. Note that I've removed one such attack by an IP at the end of the last section. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
"To the extent that that view is noteworthy, we're already citing it to better sources". What
"view"are you referring to? Bus stop ( talk) 05:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Do others believe this constitutes a point of confusion or contradiction: Intersectional critiques
"Crenshaw applauds identity politics for bringing African Americans (and other non-white people), gays and lesbians, and other oppressed groups together in community and progress.[12] But she critiques it because 'it frequently conflates or ignores intragroup differences.'[12]"
Reading the above in addition to other statements on the page, I wonder if some were taken out of context or are in need of additional information from Crenshaw. Something is lost in identity politics, Crenshaw appears to believe. I take that to mean ignoring similarities or shared political interests across groups. However, is that described? Taken together, the quotes appear pertinent yet confusing. Also, what does "together in progress" mean? It seems a vague phrase if it means together for the purposes of progressive social justice organizing. Thoughts? -- PaulThePony ( talk) 16:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The content on this page summarizing and characterizing the criticisms of identity politics was narrow and academic and needed updating with the current and latest criticisms found in mainstream political criticism and reporting following the 2016 election cycle. My additions are aimed at doing that, with citation to the work of credible contemporary political commentators.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftdefense ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it particularly helpful to cite heavily biased figures such as Brenden O'Neil and Owen Jones in an article trying to be factual or balanced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DucksCourage ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The article introduces identity politics as: "Identity politics is a term that describes a political approach wherein people of a particular religion, race, social background, class or other identifying factor develop political agendas and organize based upon the interlocking systems of oppression that affect their lives and come from their various identities. Identity politics centers the lived experiences of those facing various systems of oppression to better understand the ways in which racial, economic, gender, and other forms of oppression are linked and to ensure that political agendas and political actions arising out of identity politics leave no one behind."
Even though the motive to organize based on group identity can be to combat discrimination and oppression, this is not necessarily the case. A different case of identity politics can for example be the Scottish National Party who seeks to appeal to the Scottish national identity. Identity politics is simply when a group of people organize politically to promote the interests of their own group. On this basis, I will change the definition in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastore Barracuda ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that the whole point of the concept of "identity politics" is that it focuses on identities rather than oppression or social problems in general. It appeals to people's instinctive racism. As an example, the BLM movement is not concerned about police shootings in general, but shootings of a particular group. And the statistics do not even really support that that group is more victimized than others. People have been historically very passionate about identities such as Catholics vs Protestants, but not very passionate about injustice such as rich vs poor. The lede does not bring that aspect out at all. Tuntable ( talk) 23:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
= i agree with those above that the opening paragraph is narrow in how identity politics is defined. this narrowness is evident in that the three citations listed all refer to one single instance of how the term has been used re Black feminist, Barbara Smith and the Combahee River Collective. identity politics is not the exclusive domain of "the oppressed," nor are its objects always to "leave no one behind." identity politics can constitute the core basis of the ideologies of "the oppressed" and "oppressors" alike. re TFD: "You cannot change the definition because that is how it is defined in the literature" – the three references cited in the opening paragraph are not representative of "the literature," they provide only one example of how the term has been applied in a very limited context, and they are redundant (not to be interpreted as PA on TFD, whose efforts here are much appreciated). re TFD's more recent comment, whatever the "originators" intended can go in the history section. moreover, what "originators" may have intended is likely irrelevant to how the term is used more broadly, both in the past and in the present. Thus, this aspect of broadness is what should be captured in the opening paragraph. I agree with other commenters that there is a need for further review and inclusion of better sources (but I have little to add in this regard). Such sources should include a wide canvassing of how the term has been used and applied in various contexts, and from these sources a broader definition can be synthesized. I think the opening paragraph needs to be revised to provide a more general definition of the term. I suggest something along the lines of the following would move in the direction of a more appropriate improvement: 'identity politics' is the way in which social movements — ethnic, religious, gender-related or otherwise culturally-based – become involved in politics to expand their identity claims (Schafer, H. 2004. Identity Politics and the Political Field: A Theoretical Approach to Modeling a ‘Field of Identity Politics.’ Raab, J. (ed.). New World Colors: Ethnicity, Belonging and Difference in the Americas. Tempe: Bilingual Press & Trier).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 600:1700:cdf0:6090:c94c:949:21f5:8472 ( talk) 14:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I think there should be a section on the civil rights movement in USA of the 50's and 60's.
It is probably the most famous identity political movement ever. GoldenSensei ( talk) 07:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
One paragraph begins "In 1998, political scientists Jeffrey Kaplan and Leonard Weinberg predicted that, by the late 20th-century,..." If they were predicting in 1998, they only had 1~3 years left in "the late 20th-century," which they were already in. Kdammers ( talk) 13:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
This is not a (proper) sentence: "Similar patterns appear in the 21st century are commonly referenced in popular culture,[59] and are increasingly analyzed in media and social commentary as an interconnected part of politics and society." 79.134.37.83 ( talk) 03:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@ StellarHalo: could you please elaborate on your reasons for adding the POV tag? Your edit summary was "heavily biased against the article subject with undue weight given to criticisms". It will be difficult for editors to evaluate and potentially work to fix such a non-specific grievance. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 02:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
StellarHalo, could you elaborate on your placement of the POV template? I'm not opposed to the tag placement if it meets requirements, but I don't see that it's yet been justified based on the requirements in the template usage notes as specified in bullets 1, 2, and 4 (serious issue identified; discouragement of drive-by tagging; prevalence in sources, not among WP editors). It shouldn't be up to other editors like Firefangledfeathers to have to request this information, it should be an inherent part of placement of the tag at the outset, based on your belief that there is "a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view". I don't see that that due diligence has happened, yet, as there is no current discussion about POV problems in the article on this page, just the sudden appearance of a tag out of nowhere.
One can discuss the possible defects of an article and options for improvement in a discussion without placement of a tag, and it sounds like you have two editors willing to do that already, and there are also another 400 editors watching this article who might be willing to participate. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 07:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we add more examples for identity politics and expand on the current examples? For example, we could also write about Asian, Hispanic, indigenous identity politics, and many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsx1 ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands, is deficient in the neutral tone that is required of Wikipedia articles, and requires improvement, so that it does not seem like as if Wikipedia is stating these points of view, but its sources. As mentioned above ("Identity is not just by oppression"), parts of the article read as "this is what x is", when it should read as "this is what y states that x is". Chantern15 ( talk) 04:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15
This article has some grade of left-wing bias due to perhaps its topic and the sources which the writers of this article have used, and I believe that there needs to be some balancing out with other viewpoints. Chantern15 ( talk) 04:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15 Even some of the criticism is from the left, this is not to say that this is wrong, but when taken within the context of the whole article, it definitely makes it seem like other viewpoints are being omitted. Chantern15 ( talk) 04:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15 As an example, so that it does not seem that I am nit-picking, there is mention of Anarcho-Primitivism which is a very obscure left-wing ideology, but right-wing ideologies are merely mentioned generally or in passing (such as right-wing populism). Chantern15 ( talk) 04:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15
Some groups have combined identity politics with Marxist social class analysis and class consciousness—the most notable example being the Black Panther Party—but this is not necessarily characteristic of the form. Another example is the group MOVE, which mixed Black nationalism with anarcho-primitivismwhich is not biased at all (it's a description of certain strands of IP) and is sourced. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 06:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The examples present seem incomplete, granted Wikipedia is not an exhaustive list, but many examples are from countries influenced by the Western Hemisphere directly (for ex. Maori Identity Politcs, New Zealand), other non-western examples would be appreciated, and it would certainly benefit the article if more examples are added. The examples perhaps need to be expanded on and combined at the same time. Such as, "Black Feminist Identity Politics" could be a sub-category under Gender, which currently reads more like a stub, and this would help expand it. Chantern15 ( talk) 04:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15
Under "LGBT issues", it states, "Some supporters of identity politics take stances based on Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's work (namely, "Can the Subaltern Speak?") and have described some forms of identity politics as strategic essentialism", this is vague language, especially near, "some supporters of identity politics" requires sources to back it up. Chantern15 ( talk) 04:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15
And additionally, "some forms of identity politics", which form of identity politics? Chantern15 ( talk) 04:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15
Strategic essentialism as a category was significantly influenced by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s presentation as a concept to challenge Western feminism’s historical complicity with imperialism.Which seems good enough to source the claim that "Some supporters of identity politics take stances based on Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's work ... and have described some forms of identity politics as strategic essentialism", right? -- Mvbaron ( talk) 07:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
One's identity is not just defined by oppression, a person who's identity gives them privilege and if they wish to maintain it is also part of identity politics. Chantern15 ( talk) 09:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15
Or if it imparts no benefit or loss either Chantern15 ( talk) 09:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15
We should strive to make this article more neutral. Chantern15 ( talk) 09:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15
Academic sources vs socialist sources is not a distinction that makes sense; the two categories obviously overlap. My concern is more that the lead does not accurately reflect the body but articulates a particular perspective. While some important self-described advocates of identity politics, such as the Combahee River Collective, take an intersectional approach that centres the lived experience of the oppressed in general within a redistributive/socialist framework, the term is often used to describe those who prioritise single identities (oppressed or not) over an intersectional approach or to describe those who prioritise the politics of recognition over the politics of redistribution, and this is the sense in which identity politics is often used as a derogatory word, which is not reflected in the lead at present. The lead should show the range of ways the term is used. The academic article Chantern15 cites is a good example of a text which neatly acknowledges the contradictory uses to which the term is put. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I had a go at a bold revision of the lead to make it more neutral and encyclopedic and better reflect the body, incorporating Chantern15's ref. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The sources appear to be reliable for the statements of the Combahee River Collective and Barbara Smith. (Monthly Review especially, which is a publication of some standing; the other source is a non-notable podcast series but the episode features Smith herself.) The question is more (a) is it DUE, and (b) are Smith and the Collective the best sources to use for making general encyclopedic claims about identity politics in Wikipedia's voice in the lead of the article. Those aren't questions for this noticeboard but for the article noticeboard.By "article noticeboard", I meant this talk page we're on now. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
References
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2016 and 27 April 2016. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Carolinaann94.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Tsupatterson. Peer reviewers:
Forclassaccount.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 22 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Devikajhaveri,
Hunerwithat.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The quote makes an important point about narrow interpretations of identity politics. I would, however, edit it for length and generality:
'Now, we have the politics of identity, which invites people to stay in, to look inward, to obsess over the body and the self, to surround themselves with a moral forcefield to protect their worldview—which has nothing to do with the world—from any questioning.
Chrismorey (
talk)
16:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I haven't formed an opinion yet on whether O'Neill's quote should be included ("undue weight" issue), but if it is in the article, it should be the full quote, not elided as suggested by Chrismorey. Schazjmd (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
In the socialist critique section, there is a short sentence on critique from the right. It may be sensible to move this to, or consolidate it into another section, or to expand on it under another header. Steinschmeißer ( talk) 15:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)