![]() | The contents of the Woke mind virus page were merged into Woke. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (3 May 2024) |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Woke 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:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | A fact from Woke appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 January 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Hello. I have registered a lot of the debate on this page, and I am wondering if it might be an idea to create a separate article for "wokeness/wokeism". Several notable individuals have written on this (i.e. "wokeness", not "woke") as some perceived political inclination, worldview, phenomena or ideology, and provided historical context for it. In other words, while derived from "woke", when "wokeism" is used by historians and others, it seems to refer to a contemporary political ideology, not in the original meaning of attentiveness to discrimination, etc. For example, it is noteworthy how many historians have framed "wokeness" or "wokeism" as a post-Christian revival. Here Ian Buruma discusses "wokeness" as "an essentially Protestant phenomenon"; historian Niall Ferguson comments in this talk on the "turgid and ultimately nihilistic cult of wokeism which has much more, it seems to me, in common with the crazier aspects of the Protestant Reformation than it has with Romanticism". (Ignore the negative personal opinion, focus on his comparison). Similarly, historian Tom Holland draws parallels in his book Dominion, even naming a chapter "Woke" (Holland does not take a negative position, only attempting to see it through the prism of Christianity in America). ( Here is one tweet further showing his opinion). Buruma, by the way, references John McWhorter, who has published the book Woke Racism, again drawing direct comparisons with Calvinism. This is but a handful of the stuff floating around at the moment on the "Christian side". Others have written on it, such as Francis Fukuyama in his book Identity, to name one. ( Here in this tweet he contends wokeness "is a deformation and not the essence of liberalism". [Edit: and Here (at 5:18 and especially 37:41 onwards) is a short reference in passing by John Gray, who says "a species of hyper-liberalism, often called 'woke'", is a branch of liberalism where speech is restricted in the name of progress]. Another "school" as it were prefers to link it to post-modernism and identity politics; Helen Pluckrose has written much on what she (and others) call "Critical Social Justice", which she claims is "colloquially" called "wokeism" ( Cynical Theories). Finally, of course, you have all the very political crap from Conservatives who argue it somehow has to do with "Marxism", which more often than not seems very connected to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. This is uninteresting in all ways except merely to show the large debate over taxonomy. In other words, there is a wide range of analysis ranging from the sensible to the very not sensible. Add to this all the thousands of articles in major outlets (New York Times, Atlantic, etc.). The Economist joins many other authors to write about a " Great Awokening", viewing it as a part of the "illiberal Left". All in all, an impression starts to form that what is being discussed is more than "woke" as originally defined, but rather as shorthand for a certain set of political assumptions. The very fact that so many struggle to define it, and define it differently, is worthy of note.
My main point is that there seems to be a plethora of historians and political scientists who have written on "wokeness" as something distinct, and tried to analyze it in a historical and ideological context. In this there is wide disagreement, which itself is noteworthy. To keep this article clean and covering the original source from which this other things "wokeness" has been derived, might a separate article for it be worth considering?
I would be very interested in hearing your opinions on this. Euor ( talk) 22:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
something distinct- these seem to be the same topic. Most of the sources you cite use "woke" repeatedly and talk about the precise history described in this article; what would be the point of separating them out? -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
short reference in passinghardly qualifies as WP:SIGCOV, let alone a comment made in a lecture rather than a peer-reviewed academic publication. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 08:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
[Trump's] investments underperformed the stock and New York property markets) and using this source as a basis for describing an entire subtopic. We know from other sources that nowadays "woke/wokeness" are used mainly pejoratively amid an anti-woke backlash; any source talking about so-called wokeness must be evaluated in that context. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 16:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It seems to me that the supporters of wokeness try to define it in a way that makes it look good, and the opponents of wokeness try to define it in a way that makes it look bad. I've been trying to think of a definition that both supporters and opponents of wokeness could both agree on. I've read that in San Francisco, the two main political movements are the liberals and the progressives. I've read about quite a few disagreements between the two groups. Based on this, as well as similar debates in other left leaning cities, I'd like to propose the following definition for wokeness: Wokeness is whatever progressives believe in any situation where there is disagreement between liberals and progressives. SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 22:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
|
I believe this article should be protected, due to recent vandalism. Avishai11 ( talk) 23:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Woke agenda has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Woke agenda until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont) 08:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I feel like the assertion that "Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass..." should have a citation explaining where the "year first used" cited comes from.
Thoughts? 2601:203:200:9D0:DD8D:592E:434A:751 ( talk) 00:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Woke mind virus page were merged into Woke. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (3 May 2024) |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Woke 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:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | A fact from Woke appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 January 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Hello. I have registered a lot of the debate on this page, and I am wondering if it might be an idea to create a separate article for "wokeness/wokeism". Several notable individuals have written on this (i.e. "wokeness", not "woke") as some perceived political inclination, worldview, phenomena or ideology, and provided historical context for it. In other words, while derived from "woke", when "wokeism" is used by historians and others, it seems to refer to a contemporary political ideology, not in the original meaning of attentiveness to discrimination, etc. For example, it is noteworthy how many historians have framed "wokeness" or "wokeism" as a post-Christian revival. Here Ian Buruma discusses "wokeness" as "an essentially Protestant phenomenon"; historian Niall Ferguson comments in this talk on the "turgid and ultimately nihilistic cult of wokeism which has much more, it seems to me, in common with the crazier aspects of the Protestant Reformation than it has with Romanticism". (Ignore the negative personal opinion, focus on his comparison). Similarly, historian Tom Holland draws parallels in his book Dominion, even naming a chapter "Woke" (Holland does not take a negative position, only attempting to see it through the prism of Christianity in America). ( Here is one tweet further showing his opinion). Buruma, by the way, references John McWhorter, who has published the book Woke Racism, again drawing direct comparisons with Calvinism. This is but a handful of the stuff floating around at the moment on the "Christian side". Others have written on it, such as Francis Fukuyama in his book Identity, to name one. ( Here in this tweet he contends wokeness "is a deformation and not the essence of liberalism". [Edit: and Here (at 5:18 and especially 37:41 onwards) is a short reference in passing by John Gray, who says "a species of hyper-liberalism, often called 'woke'", is a branch of liberalism where speech is restricted in the name of progress]. Another "school" as it were prefers to link it to post-modernism and identity politics; Helen Pluckrose has written much on what she (and others) call "Critical Social Justice", which she claims is "colloquially" called "wokeism" ( Cynical Theories). Finally, of course, you have all the very political crap from Conservatives who argue it somehow has to do with "Marxism", which more often than not seems very connected to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. This is uninteresting in all ways except merely to show the large debate over taxonomy. In other words, there is a wide range of analysis ranging from the sensible to the very not sensible. Add to this all the thousands of articles in major outlets (New York Times, Atlantic, etc.). The Economist joins many other authors to write about a " Great Awokening", viewing it as a part of the "illiberal Left". All in all, an impression starts to form that what is being discussed is more than "woke" as originally defined, but rather as shorthand for a certain set of political assumptions. The very fact that so many struggle to define it, and define it differently, is worthy of note.
My main point is that there seems to be a plethora of historians and political scientists who have written on "wokeness" as something distinct, and tried to analyze it in a historical and ideological context. In this there is wide disagreement, which itself is noteworthy. To keep this article clean and covering the original source from which this other things "wokeness" has been derived, might a separate article for it be worth considering?
I would be very interested in hearing your opinions on this. Euor ( talk) 22:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
something distinct- these seem to be the same topic. Most of the sources you cite use "woke" repeatedly and talk about the precise history described in this article; what would be the point of separating them out? -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
short reference in passinghardly qualifies as WP:SIGCOV, let alone a comment made in a lecture rather than a peer-reviewed academic publication. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 08:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
[Trump's] investments underperformed the stock and New York property markets) and using this source as a basis for describing an entire subtopic. We know from other sources that nowadays "woke/wokeness" are used mainly pejoratively amid an anti-woke backlash; any source talking about so-called wokeness must be evaluated in that context. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 16:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It seems to me that the supporters of wokeness try to define it in a way that makes it look good, and the opponents of wokeness try to define it in a way that makes it look bad. I've been trying to think of a definition that both supporters and opponents of wokeness could both agree on. I've read that in San Francisco, the two main political movements are the liberals and the progressives. I've read about quite a few disagreements between the two groups. Based on this, as well as similar debates in other left leaning cities, I'd like to propose the following definition for wokeness: Wokeness is whatever progressives believe in any situation where there is disagreement between liberals and progressives. SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 22:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
|
I believe this article should be protected, due to recent vandalism. Avishai11 ( talk) 23:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Woke agenda has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Woke agenda until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont) 08:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I feel like the assertion that "Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass..." should have a citation explaining where the "year first used" cited comes from.
Thoughts? 2601:203:200:9D0:DD8D:592E:434A:751 ( talk) 00:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)