![]() | 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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
§ Reception and criticism cites the opinions of Bill Maher, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brendan O'Neill, Douglas Murray, Timothy Egan, Nick Cave(!), and the redoubtable David Brooks, among others. While these are all notable individuals in their own right, I'm not aware of any of them being considered subject-matter experts in race relations, civil rights, or the English language. Most are just pundits whose careers depend on their ability to deliver spicy takes, resulting in disproportionate media coverage of current controversies. I think this section could be pared down subtantially, at least by getting rid of the opinions that aren't mentioned in a reliable, secondary source. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Hodgdon's secret garden: I've reverted your addition of more material about Maher for the reasons cited above. Please discuss here. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 00:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The New Discourses source is just another opinion essay, of which there are innumerable, criticizing "wokeness" or use of the term "woke". That makes it a primary source for such criticism. To avoid original research and undue weight, we need independent sources that discuss the criticism as a topic in its own right. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
just another opinion essay." Something approaching Feature-article level coverage of controversial topics is often only achievable through balanced use of notable opinion pieces; otherwise, imbalance results in favor of the pov's of proponents of the theory or otherwise-controversial subject under review: in my opinion, ND's editor and principal author (who has co-authored more than one book-length treatment critical of the topic at hand) satisfies this requirement of notability for our purposes here. See wikiguideline Neutral#Bias in sources; the essay "RS may be non-neutral"; & wikiguideline "PARTISAN":
biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view...."
One of the perennial issues that arises during editor disputes is how the neutral point of view policy interacts with the reliable sources guideline. Arguments often arise which contend that a given source ought to be excluded as unreliable because the source has an identifiable point of view. These arguments cross a wide variety of topics and stem from a common misunderstanding about how NPOV interacts with RS. The neutral point of view policy applies to Wikipedia articles as a whole: articles should reflect an appropriate balance of differing points of view. The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking clarification needed and reliability--not the source's neutrality. Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view. A frequent example that arises in this type of discussion is The New York Times, which is the leading newspaper of record in the United States yet which is sometimes said to reflect a left-wing point of view. If that presents a problem within article space, the problem is not reliability. The appropriate Wikipedian solution is to include The New York Times and also to add other reliable sources that represent a different point of view. The Wall Street Journal and National Review are reliable sources that present right wing points of view. Left-leaning The Village Voice might also be cited. The appropriate balance can be determined from the undue weight clause of the neutrality policy. Overall, good Wikipedian contribution renders articles objective and neutral by presenting an appropriate balance of reliable opinions. It requires less research to argue against one reliable source than to locate alternate reliable sources, which may be why neutrality/reliability conflation is a perennial problem. This phenomenon is global rather than national. For instance, with regard to Middle East politics the Jerusalem Post presents a view of events that is distinct from Al Jazeera. Generally speaking, both sources are reliable. When these two sources differ, Wikipedian purposes are best served by clearly stating what each source reported without attempting to editorialize which of the conflicting presentations is intrinsically right. |
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This makes it a self-published source. The author of the piece, David Bern, does not appear to be a recognized expert on cultural issues - his bio simply calls him a "nonprofit CEO" and "critic of woke ideology" and his Twitter account has fewer than 600 followers. Unless there's substantial reliable secondary sources commenting on Bern's opinion, it's unclear to me why his primary-sourced opinion merits any weight whatsoever here. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 19:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Lindsay & co.'s opinions have received notice within such independent RSes as those contained herein.
|
---|
|
Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. [...E]xamples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within[...]material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media...." // "
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 19:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
— Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)City Journal is published by a conservative think tank.
... Taking a few examples from WP:FA § Culture and society, our articles on the Apollo 15 postal covers incident, Macedonia (terminology), and Same-sex marriage in Spain don't cite a single opinion piece, though the topics are/were definitely controversial.
... Most of the sources you linked are primary sources for one person's opinion or another. WP articles should be based mainly on secondary sources.
... no one is suggesting we exclude sources based on their POV. Due weight of opinions based on reliable sources is exactly what most editors here are going for, I think.
... Just because we can use [these sources] doesn't mean we should.
... from what I know, Lindsay & Pluckrose's work does not meet [WP:RS] requirements. They authored a polemic which seeks to debunk academic theories but was not itself academically vetted prior to publication. Their involvement in the grievance studies affair directly links them to the topic, meaning they are not independent from it.
... most of [these sources] are not reliable for factual content. I already mentioned City Journal; The Spectator, Commentary, and World are opinion sources. OZY is a fairly new player in the media sphere; I'm not sure how much weight we'd give it. (And it explicitly calls Lindsay & co. "fringe".) Additionally, news coverage of recent controversies like the grievance studies affair is often disproportionate to their overall significance and should be handled cautiously.
... that's what opinion magazines do. They publish opinions, often controversial ones. That doesn't mean [Lindsay's] (non-expert) opinion is relevant for our purposes. CRT is but one of the many fields and schools swept up in Lindsay & co.'s anti-wokeness dragnet.
... independence from the topic is only one consideration; the other is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
... James A. Lindsay is a mathematician. Please show where his work in [the relevant field] has been published in reliable sources ... (not counting hoax papers, obviously).
ideological enemy. Those are not the words and deeds of a disinterested "expert" in a field. No one would describe Michael Moore as an "expert" on conservatism - similarly, James Lindsay is not an "expert" on critical race theory. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 01:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
single-issue warrior[s]out there who are not experts. Jenny McCarthy is
notableas an opponent of vaccines. That doesn't make her a reliable source on them. Wikipedia didn't exist in H. L. Mencken's day, but if it had, his opinions wouldn't have been any more encyclopedic then. An encyclopedia article is not an indiscriminate collection of noteworthy (or newsworthy) opinions, but a summary of accepted knowledge on a subject. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 20:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge; and What Wikipedia is not:
A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. By your logic, every Holocaust-denying racist notable enough for their own Wikipedia page should be quoted alongside mainstream scholars of The Holocaust. We don't give undue prominence to fringe views like Holocaust denial, anti-vax, flat Earth, or those of Lindsay & co. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Sangdeboeuf: "...fringe views like[...]those of Lindsay & co."
Wikipedia:Describing points of view: At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects."(*)
In the introduction to Wikipedia's "Featured Article Criteria" page included a link to the guideline references Category:Wikipedia content policies, of which a member is Wikipedia:Reliable sources, of which a subsection is Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources, which, in turn, reads:"A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. [... They're deemed] comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias....
"reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
"In Thought du Jour Harold Geneenb. 1910; d. 1997; president of the ITT Corp. has statedRef.: Cited by Michael Kesterton in The Globe and Mail: "The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."†
The false part was FA quality is often achieved through use of opinion pieces
, as I showed with examples. The part of
WP:OPINION you left out says, the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue.
Scholars' and specialists' relevant writing is to be found in in academic journals and monographs, not op-eds and blogs. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
22:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
succinctlyis laughable. I've already responded to most of these arguments; try to WP:LISTEN. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The article is presently about " Woke" (in its adjectival sense). It's suggested it be enlarged to include pertinent material more-so about " woke-ness" (which Cambridge University defines as a mainly US informal noun meaning "a state of being aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality").
Independent coverage such as this article in Vox arguing that "Republicans are trying to outlaw wokeness," which adds that "Jeffrey Sachs, a professor of politics at Acadia University, calls it 'The New War on Woke.'" Elsewhere RS discussions abound that concern woke-influenced sensitivity trainings in government and business human resources departments. Should these be thought tangential our Wikipedia entry's coverage of woke or not? If yes, I suggest something like the following for possible inclusion.
As of the early 2020s, works of such thinkers on race relations as Ibram X. Kendi, [1] Robin J. DiAngelo, [2] [3] Carol Anderson, Ta-Nehisi Coates, [1] [4] [5] [6] and others, had come to cultural salience in the U.S. After various company human resources departments began featuring some of these works' thought within employee sensitivity training courses, [7] certain scholars and commentators used woke as an identifying term for to their methodologies, including Jonathan Chait, [8] John McWhorter, [9] [10] Wilfred Reilly [11] Raluca Bejan [12] and others. [13] [14] In January 2021, a confidential "anti-woke" help line was founded in the U.K. by the scholar Helen Pluckrose, known for her critique of wokeism: a Discord server that fields such calls as those from employees concerned with some allegedly overwrought features within diversity training programs, [15] and aims to "help people convince their employers to allow them to reject racism from their own philosophical, ethical or religious beliefs and not [a] highly theoretical and political one." [16]
Of course, wanting to avoid, per WP:FORBESCON, material that's self-published, I do note that one of the above citations is to Raluca Bejan, a published academic who teaches in the school of social work at Nova Scotia's public university Dalhousie, which piece was published in the Conversation, a publication of her own university.
About the rest: the New York Times's Elizabeth A. Harris on its books-and-publishing beat, the Guardian's Nosheen Iqbal is its women's editor, the Atlantic's London-based staff writer Helen Lewis has written a book on the history of feminism, the NewYorker's Sanneh Kelefa's beat is primarily race and culture, PBS NewsHour's Amna Nawaz is an Emmy award-winning broadcast journalist, the Washington Post's opinion-piece writer Jonathan Capehart analyzes politics, Forbes contributor Julia Wuench has expertise in emergent leadership training, columnist Jonothan Chait of New York (magazine's) Intelligencer writes about US culture and politics, NPR "Morning Edition" journalist Steve Inskeep has received awards including for his reporting on complexities of electoral politics and race, Atlantic contributor John McWhorter is a linguist and social critic at Columbia, USA Today contibutor Wilfred Reilly is a political scientist at Kentucky State, The Independent opinion columnist writes nonfiction/fiction and teaches at UC Irvine, The Hill opinion contributor Dennis M. Powell is a management consultant, the Independent's Celia Walden's beats include women's issues and social etiquette.
The small number of the opinion pieces above are suggested as being appropriate under
wp:PARTISAN: "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in 'Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...'
"; and also see WP's Neutral-Point-of-View page at
wp:YESPOV.--
Hodgdon's secret garden (
talk)
19:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
neutral and briefas per WP:RFCNEUTRAL and there has been no prior discussion of the text in question as per WP:RFCBEFORE. Failing that, oppose as off-topic and WP:UNDUE. As I said when I removed the text from the article,
The linchpin of this paragraph is a WP:FORBESCON – essentially self-published – the rest are primary sources or unrelated to the topic. Bejan's commentary and the rest aren't about the term "woke". "Wokeism" is undefined and POV. See § Use vs. mention above. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
small number of opinion pieces, but in practice you are hinging the entire section on what they say, while using unrelated non-opinion pieces to try and make their argument in the text via WP:SYNTH. Finally, I don't see what source you're using for the term "wokeism", which would clearly require a high-quality non-opinion source to state as if it were definitely an indisputable thing in the article text, the way you're using the word here. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, as promised, I'm going to offer a mea culpa – below! – but, first, I want to explain myself (and, with apologies, if I seem prolix):
convenient label for a kind of ideology that has been with us for decades but it has increased in its prominence particularly in 2020. (By the way: Note that, in Pinker's branch of the Academy, if Conservatives are not as "rare as black swans," they are not common— and, in fact, Pinker's own case, he happens to be outspokenly very politically liberal and, also – an advocate of "combating [racism through] the open exchange of ideas").
OK: Now, I'm getting to my mea culpa— (!)
I now know that my leeriness about other-editors-here's motives to have been illogical of me: Because I myself believed woke to be a used and useful shorthand for any combinations of b. through h., I then illogically thought any talkpage commenters hereabouts would do so, as well. But, it turns out that there seems to be pretty solid ground for them to doubt this shorthand even exists! Probably a lot of people know what it means but never themselves use it! Prof. Pinker, for example, only referred to the word, and this because his having been asked by an interviewer about it; but, Pinker, himself, actually omitted his use of the word even whilst he was otherwise-directly addressing its use. What does this tell us? That the word actually is considered impolite enough that – whereas everybody knows what it means, I'm sure – it appears a very good many people still would be disinclined, themselves, at all to use it in their own language, let alone openly. Hence, if Wikipedia were to have an article on this catchall or rubric for critiques of any combination of b. through h.———
Per wp:NEO:
"[...A]rticles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create an uncommon neologism in English. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. Editors may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead.
"Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
"Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a 'true' term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.
"In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
wp:Non-judgmental descriptive titles
"...In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim 'made with little or no proof' and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations".)
"However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Because 'Boston Massacre' is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title 'Political impact of the Boston Massacre' would also be acceptable.")
That is all.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 18:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
... (a.) woke ... has been co-opted by the right wing as a shorthand for— to quote our Wikipedia article: b. identity politics, c, cancel culture, d. race-baiting, e. political correctness, f. internet call-out culture, and g. virtue signaling within society's general h. culture war.I've tagged that statement for a citation. These are all contentious, loaded terms/topics. Saying or implying that any or all of them fall under the rubric of "woke(ness)" is highly POV. Giving coverage to
commentators' having used woke as an identifying term for anti-racism methodologiesneeds to be based on independent, secondary sources. An indiscriminate collection of op-eds, blogs, polemics, etc. that happen to use the term aren't enough to show that this expanded meaning of "woke" is sufficiently notable. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
(note - the quote's hypertext @". . One need only look to the pages of Tablet Magazine, National Review, or a seemingly endless parade of podcasts and Substacks to see how common these once-fringe theories have become. And so by the time a local politician encounters them, even the most lunatic of voices . ."
tabletleading to commentary by bari weiss; @ <chuckles> "
most lunatic of voices," to some panelist testimony @ the NH statehouse that incl. mr. james lindsay)
CLICK UPPER-RIGHT MARGIN: I believe a term will arise for "contra 'wokeness'."
| ||
---|---|---|
|
turn up, in normal usage, one day. And editorials like Guerrin's are not reliable for facts. Why do we care what
LeMonde's editor-in-chiefthinks? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 20:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Then, attempting helpful input regarding my question (not with xenophobia), you inquired, Who gives a toss about opinion of M Guerrin?; and, I demonstrated that, concerning coverage of d'homme à homme entre les gentilshommes Mssrs Guerrin et Neef de l'Opéra de Paris, those caring include the Times of London.
(To the question of whether M Guerrin has used the word woke):
In M Guerrin's editorial subsequent to one(s) concerning the Mssrs Guerrin–Neef brouhaha (the one I cited toward the top of the thread), he used woke in English followed by its French translation (about America's allegedly disproportionate political correctness by which M Guerrin's believes French culture might be becoming overly influenced); however, in M Guerrin's specific editorial about Neef and, e.g., operatic " blackface," Guerrin referenced a term also-of-American-origin: cancel culture (about M Neef – who'd formerly been director of the Canadian Opera Company – giving the indication that operas' rightly ought to become cancelled).
The title of the NYT article is "Will American Ideas Tear France Apart? Some of Its Leaders Think So". Unless a reliable source directly links any of the ideas in question with the word "woke", naming them in the article is improper synthesis. The fact that Guerrin's opinions on other topics have been noted by reliable sources doesn't make his opinion on this topic noteworthy. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
warn[] that progressive American ideas — specifically on race, gender, post-colonialism — are undermining [French] society...Next sentence:
as contamination by the out-of-control woke leftism of American campuses and its attendant cancel culture
...echoes of the American culture wars[: ...]Mass protests in France against police violence, inspired by the killing of George Floyd, challenged the official dismissal of race and systemic racism. [ ...A]ctivists prevented the staging of a play by Aeschylus to protest the wearing of masks and dark makeup by white actors [ ... Nathalie Heinich: ] 'It was a series of incidents that was extremely traumatic to our community and that all fell under what is called cancel culture'.........
100...scholars wrote an open letter..........Pierre-André Taguieff:
'...importation' in France of the 'American-style Black question'.........Stéphane Beaud's & Gérard Noiriel's
book critical of racial studies...received extensive news coverage.
do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.-- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Proposal: The current article Woke is about the term itself. Yet, there is also a movement that is against things that encompass said wokeness, along with a few other things. (See, for example, the following information (LINK) by Zorro Maplestone of MDI (non-governmental organizational, based in London, the Media Diversity Institute),
". . if you were reading French newspapers Le Point, Le Figaro, Le Monde, or watching TV channel CNews, you might have believed that the true threat to France is the 'Americanisation' of social sciences in French universities. 'Gender, identities, cancel culture… The fantasy of the American peril': the presumed culprits are made clear, and the front lines are drawn – both across the Atlantic and within universities – for the latest battles of the French culture war. The issue, according to a growing list of critics, would be that French universities are host to 'indigenist, racialist, and "decolonial" ideologies (transferred from North American campuses)…[which]…nourish a hatred of "whites" and of France', as stated in an open letter in the most-read French daily newspaper Le Monde. Some of these critics have even gone so far as to found a semi-satirical Observatory of Decolonialism and Identitarian Ideologies. ."
But—— This counter-movement doesn't yet have a wikientry associated with it; therefore, I suggest, humbly, that we create a new article. And, respectfully, that this entry's name utilize some terminology used by individuals in this counter-movement, while it also follows our wikimanual of style's wise guidelines at wp:NEO that, in cases when there exists non-established (as yet) neologisms, an article title-to-be be composed as a
"descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if[...]somewhat long or awkward"
; therefore, in light of the foregoing – and, also, to scholar-activist Bari Weiss's inability to find a name for it (other than her resort to such as "as-yet-unnamed") in her article here – I humbly propose for the fulfillment of these purposes the title Movement against de-colonialism and identitarian ideologies.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 22:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
terminology used by individuals in this counter-movementin the title is unavoidably POV as well. Which material specifically are you proposing to split off from this article? -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 04:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
resistance to the concept of intersectionality" and defines the phenomenon of anti-(term?) critiques such as Gérard Noiriel's as their concerning, perhaps disparately, "
intersectional feminism, post-colonial studies, critical race studies, cancel culture, the concept of 'woke'-ness, and even the practice of inclusive writing."
"ideology"is contentious. Your own source says "identitarian Leftism" is derisive, and "woke" (as in "woke progressivism") is used as a mocking insult by critics. None of these are neutral descriptions. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 20:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC) edited 22:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
"A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline ( GNG)
below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline ( SNG) listed in the box on the right; and – [negatively] It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy."
"A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject— Thus, inasmuch as our current page covers, in full detail, a sub-topic centered on the word woke, per the-positive- direction "summary-style" guideline, creation of a parent article to woke – as well as parent to intersectionality, intersectional feminism, post-colonial studies, critical race studies, cancel culture, and inclusive writing, political correctness, identity politics (and other manifestations of grievance against the multifarious swaths of oppression) – usefully expand the encyclopedia ( wp:SUMMARY STYLE: "
A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right"). Although, in the hypothetical of were our present article in the future to become expanded from the word woke to developments an overall movement-become-associated-with-its-name (including notable criticisms thereof, per wp:CRIT): then, yes, yet "another" article on woke (in this expanded meaning) would be a fork.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
"Eliane Thoma-Stemmet Explores the Impact of the ' Grievance Culture' narrative in shaming those who speak up about racism into silence and how this has a powerful historical precedent in the British context. - ". . [the Guardian's] Afua . . Hirsch rightly points out that the term 'woke' has in recent years been twisted by conservatives of all kinds to undermine anti-racism. Institutions and individuals hostile to racial justice work are armed with many terms to trivialise an individual’s commitment to fighting inequality. In the case of a BBC skit entitled 'Are You Too Woke?', social justice is presented as a fad for white youth, who will soon grow out of their caricatured, liberal views. More aggressive cases attack 'identity politics' in order to condemn those who speak out about experiences of racial inequality for demanding 'special treatment.' . ."
Although they cannot dominate, opinion pieces are very often of prime importance in giving encyclopedic coverage to subjects of controversy: such, as in our present case's sub-set of the culture wars. To save from repeatedly pushing the exact same combination on my keyboard (...and, Who knows? perhaps resulting in my developing a pernicious carpal-tunnel condition, or something!): When you subsequently come to refer to your contention w/o proper guidelines support, I'll simply write Excelsior! — or better yet, will copy and paste the present, turquoised comment, by way of my reply.<conclude message> -- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 17:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
". . ' anti-racism,' ' cancel culture,' ' racial equity,' ' white privilege' and ' systemic racism' . . ' woke ideology,' ' critical race theory' or ' intersectionality' . . are now regularly invoked by activists, pundits and even some elected officials.[ . . M]any conservatives and Republican officials are now regularly invoking the term 'woke' as an all-encompassing term for liberal ideas they don’t like, particularly ones that have emerged recently[ . . .] Ten views, based on polls and public discourse, that are increasingly influential on the left. This is an informal list, but I think it captures some real sentiments on the left and ideas that people on the right are criticizing when they invoke the term 'woke': 1 . . America has never been a true or full democracy. . . 2 'white privilege' . . 3 . . a broader 'systemic' and 'institutional' racism. 4 . . Capitalism as currently practiced in America is deeply flawed . . 5 . . systemic sexism. 6 . . identify[ing] as whatever gender [. .] prefer[ed] . . 7 . . disparity — for example, Black, Latino or women being underrepresented in a given profession or industry . . 8 . . reparations . . 9 Law enforcement agencies[ . . w]hen they treat people of color or the poor badly . . 10 . . lots of Americans have negative views about people of color, Black people in particular. . ." // ". . most prominent uses of 'woke' are as a pejorative — Republicans attacking Democrats, more centrist Democrats attacking more liberal ones and supporters of the British monarchy using the term to criticize people more sympathetic to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Those critical of so-called woke ideas and people often invoke the idea that they are being 'canceled'[ . . I]deas cast as woke are often coming from progressives and involve identity and race . . "
– is at our lede's 2nd graf. Now that a few sources have begun to show up for this neologism, I've offered a tentative improvement here (diff).-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 17:57, 25 March 2021 (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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
§ Reception and criticism cites the opinions of Bill Maher, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brendan O'Neill, Douglas Murray, Timothy Egan, Nick Cave(!), and the redoubtable David Brooks, among others. While these are all notable individuals in their own right, I'm not aware of any of them being considered subject-matter experts in race relations, civil rights, or the English language. Most are just pundits whose careers depend on their ability to deliver spicy takes, resulting in disproportionate media coverage of current controversies. I think this section could be pared down subtantially, at least by getting rid of the opinions that aren't mentioned in a reliable, secondary source. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Hodgdon's secret garden: I've reverted your addition of more material about Maher for the reasons cited above. Please discuss here. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 00:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The New Discourses source is just another opinion essay, of which there are innumerable, criticizing "wokeness" or use of the term "woke". That makes it a primary source for such criticism. To avoid original research and undue weight, we need independent sources that discuss the criticism as a topic in its own right. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
just another opinion essay." Something approaching Feature-article level coverage of controversial topics is often only achievable through balanced use of notable opinion pieces; otherwise, imbalance results in favor of the pov's of proponents of the theory or otherwise-controversial subject under review: in my opinion, ND's editor and principal author (who has co-authored more than one book-length treatment critical of the topic at hand) satisfies this requirement of notability for our purposes here. See wikiguideline Neutral#Bias in sources; the essay "RS may be non-neutral"; & wikiguideline "PARTISAN":
biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view...."
One of the perennial issues that arises during editor disputes is how the neutral point of view policy interacts with the reliable sources guideline. Arguments often arise which contend that a given source ought to be excluded as unreliable because the source has an identifiable point of view. These arguments cross a wide variety of topics and stem from a common misunderstanding about how NPOV interacts with RS. The neutral point of view policy applies to Wikipedia articles as a whole: articles should reflect an appropriate balance of differing points of view. The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking clarification needed and reliability--not the source's neutrality. Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view. A frequent example that arises in this type of discussion is The New York Times, which is the leading newspaper of record in the United States yet which is sometimes said to reflect a left-wing point of view. If that presents a problem within article space, the problem is not reliability. The appropriate Wikipedian solution is to include The New York Times and also to add other reliable sources that represent a different point of view. The Wall Street Journal and National Review are reliable sources that present right wing points of view. Left-leaning The Village Voice might also be cited. The appropriate balance can be determined from the undue weight clause of the neutrality policy. Overall, good Wikipedian contribution renders articles objective and neutral by presenting an appropriate balance of reliable opinions. It requires less research to argue against one reliable source than to locate alternate reliable sources, which may be why neutrality/reliability conflation is a perennial problem. This phenomenon is global rather than national. For instance, with regard to Middle East politics the Jerusalem Post presents a view of events that is distinct from Al Jazeera. Generally speaking, both sources are reliable. When these two sources differ, Wikipedian purposes are best served by clearly stating what each source reported without attempting to editorialize which of the conflicting presentations is intrinsically right. |
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This makes it a self-published source. The author of the piece, David Bern, does not appear to be a recognized expert on cultural issues - his bio simply calls him a "nonprofit CEO" and "critic of woke ideology" and his Twitter account has fewer than 600 followers. Unless there's substantial reliable secondary sources commenting on Bern's opinion, it's unclear to me why his primary-sourced opinion merits any weight whatsoever here. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 19:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Lindsay & co.'s opinions have received notice within such independent RSes as those contained herein.
|
---|
|
Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. [...E]xamples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within[...]material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media...." // "
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 19:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
— Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)City Journal is published by a conservative think tank.
... Taking a few examples from WP:FA § Culture and society, our articles on the Apollo 15 postal covers incident, Macedonia (terminology), and Same-sex marriage in Spain don't cite a single opinion piece, though the topics are/were definitely controversial.
... Most of the sources you linked are primary sources for one person's opinion or another. WP articles should be based mainly on secondary sources.
... no one is suggesting we exclude sources based on their POV. Due weight of opinions based on reliable sources is exactly what most editors here are going for, I think.
... Just because we can use [these sources] doesn't mean we should.
... from what I know, Lindsay & Pluckrose's work does not meet [WP:RS] requirements. They authored a polemic which seeks to debunk academic theories but was not itself academically vetted prior to publication. Their involvement in the grievance studies affair directly links them to the topic, meaning they are not independent from it.
... most of [these sources] are not reliable for factual content. I already mentioned City Journal; The Spectator, Commentary, and World are opinion sources. OZY is a fairly new player in the media sphere; I'm not sure how much weight we'd give it. (And it explicitly calls Lindsay & co. "fringe".) Additionally, news coverage of recent controversies like the grievance studies affair is often disproportionate to their overall significance and should be handled cautiously.
... that's what opinion magazines do. They publish opinions, often controversial ones. That doesn't mean [Lindsay's] (non-expert) opinion is relevant for our purposes. CRT is but one of the many fields and schools swept up in Lindsay & co.'s anti-wokeness dragnet.
... independence from the topic is only one consideration; the other is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
... James A. Lindsay is a mathematician. Please show where his work in [the relevant field] has been published in reliable sources ... (not counting hoax papers, obviously).
ideological enemy. Those are not the words and deeds of a disinterested "expert" in a field. No one would describe Michael Moore as an "expert" on conservatism - similarly, James Lindsay is not an "expert" on critical race theory. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 01:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
single-issue warrior[s]out there who are not experts. Jenny McCarthy is
notableas an opponent of vaccines. That doesn't make her a reliable source on them. Wikipedia didn't exist in H. L. Mencken's day, but if it had, his opinions wouldn't have been any more encyclopedic then. An encyclopedia article is not an indiscriminate collection of noteworthy (or newsworthy) opinions, but a summary of accepted knowledge on a subject. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 20:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge; and What Wikipedia is not:
A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. By your logic, every Holocaust-denying racist notable enough for their own Wikipedia page should be quoted alongside mainstream scholars of The Holocaust. We don't give undue prominence to fringe views like Holocaust denial, anti-vax, flat Earth, or those of Lindsay & co. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Sangdeboeuf: "...fringe views like[...]those of Lindsay & co."
Wikipedia:Describing points of view: At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects."(*)
In the introduction to Wikipedia's "Featured Article Criteria" page included a link to the guideline references Category:Wikipedia content policies, of which a member is Wikipedia:Reliable sources, of which a subsection is Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources, which, in turn, reads:"A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. [... They're deemed] comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias....
"reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
"In Thought du Jour Harold Geneenb. 1910; d. 1997; president of the ITT Corp. has statedRef.: Cited by Michael Kesterton in The Globe and Mail: "The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."†
The false part was FA quality is often achieved through use of opinion pieces
, as I showed with examples. The part of
WP:OPINION you left out says, the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue.
Scholars' and specialists' relevant writing is to be found in in academic journals and monographs, not op-eds and blogs. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
22:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
succinctlyis laughable. I've already responded to most of these arguments; try to WP:LISTEN. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The article is presently about " Woke" (in its adjectival sense). It's suggested it be enlarged to include pertinent material more-so about " woke-ness" (which Cambridge University defines as a mainly US informal noun meaning "a state of being aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality").
Independent coverage such as this article in Vox arguing that "Republicans are trying to outlaw wokeness," which adds that "Jeffrey Sachs, a professor of politics at Acadia University, calls it 'The New War on Woke.'" Elsewhere RS discussions abound that concern woke-influenced sensitivity trainings in government and business human resources departments. Should these be thought tangential our Wikipedia entry's coverage of woke or not? If yes, I suggest something like the following for possible inclusion.
As of the early 2020s, works of such thinkers on race relations as Ibram X. Kendi, [1] Robin J. DiAngelo, [2] [3] Carol Anderson, Ta-Nehisi Coates, [1] [4] [5] [6] and others, had come to cultural salience in the U.S. After various company human resources departments began featuring some of these works' thought within employee sensitivity training courses, [7] certain scholars and commentators used woke as an identifying term for to their methodologies, including Jonathan Chait, [8] John McWhorter, [9] [10] Wilfred Reilly [11] Raluca Bejan [12] and others. [13] [14] In January 2021, a confidential "anti-woke" help line was founded in the U.K. by the scholar Helen Pluckrose, known for her critique of wokeism: a Discord server that fields such calls as those from employees concerned with some allegedly overwrought features within diversity training programs, [15] and aims to "help people convince their employers to allow them to reject racism from their own philosophical, ethical or religious beliefs and not [a] highly theoretical and political one." [16]
Of course, wanting to avoid, per WP:FORBESCON, material that's self-published, I do note that one of the above citations is to Raluca Bejan, a published academic who teaches in the school of social work at Nova Scotia's public university Dalhousie, which piece was published in the Conversation, a publication of her own university.
About the rest: the New York Times's Elizabeth A. Harris on its books-and-publishing beat, the Guardian's Nosheen Iqbal is its women's editor, the Atlantic's London-based staff writer Helen Lewis has written a book on the history of feminism, the NewYorker's Sanneh Kelefa's beat is primarily race and culture, PBS NewsHour's Amna Nawaz is an Emmy award-winning broadcast journalist, the Washington Post's opinion-piece writer Jonathan Capehart analyzes politics, Forbes contributor Julia Wuench has expertise in emergent leadership training, columnist Jonothan Chait of New York (magazine's) Intelligencer writes about US culture and politics, NPR "Morning Edition" journalist Steve Inskeep has received awards including for his reporting on complexities of electoral politics and race, Atlantic contributor John McWhorter is a linguist and social critic at Columbia, USA Today contibutor Wilfred Reilly is a political scientist at Kentucky State, The Independent opinion columnist writes nonfiction/fiction and teaches at UC Irvine, The Hill opinion contributor Dennis M. Powell is a management consultant, the Independent's Celia Walden's beats include women's issues and social etiquette.
The small number of the opinion pieces above are suggested as being appropriate under
wp:PARTISAN: "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in 'Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...'
"; and also see WP's Neutral-Point-of-View page at
wp:YESPOV.--
Hodgdon's secret garden (
talk)
19:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
neutral and briefas per WP:RFCNEUTRAL and there has been no prior discussion of the text in question as per WP:RFCBEFORE. Failing that, oppose as off-topic and WP:UNDUE. As I said when I removed the text from the article,
The linchpin of this paragraph is a WP:FORBESCON – essentially self-published – the rest are primary sources or unrelated to the topic. Bejan's commentary and the rest aren't about the term "woke". "Wokeism" is undefined and POV. See § Use vs. mention above. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
small number of opinion pieces, but in practice you are hinging the entire section on what they say, while using unrelated non-opinion pieces to try and make their argument in the text via WP:SYNTH. Finally, I don't see what source you're using for the term "wokeism", which would clearly require a high-quality non-opinion source to state as if it were definitely an indisputable thing in the article text, the way you're using the word here. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, as promised, I'm going to offer a mea culpa – below! – but, first, I want to explain myself (and, with apologies, if I seem prolix):
convenient label for a kind of ideology that has been with us for decades but it has increased in its prominence particularly in 2020. (By the way: Note that, in Pinker's branch of the Academy, if Conservatives are not as "rare as black swans," they are not common— and, in fact, Pinker's own case, he happens to be outspokenly very politically liberal and, also – an advocate of "combating [racism through] the open exchange of ideas").
OK: Now, I'm getting to my mea culpa— (!)
I now know that my leeriness about other-editors-here's motives to have been illogical of me: Because I myself believed woke to be a used and useful shorthand for any combinations of b. through h., I then illogically thought any talkpage commenters hereabouts would do so, as well. But, it turns out that there seems to be pretty solid ground for them to doubt this shorthand even exists! Probably a lot of people know what it means but never themselves use it! Prof. Pinker, for example, only referred to the word, and this because his having been asked by an interviewer about it; but, Pinker, himself, actually omitted his use of the word even whilst he was otherwise-directly addressing its use. What does this tell us? That the word actually is considered impolite enough that – whereas everybody knows what it means, I'm sure – it appears a very good many people still would be disinclined, themselves, at all to use it in their own language, let alone openly. Hence, if Wikipedia were to have an article on this catchall or rubric for critiques of any combination of b. through h.———
Per wp:NEO:
"[...A]rticles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create an uncommon neologism in English. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. Editors may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead.
"Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
"Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a 'true' term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.
"In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
wp:Non-judgmental descriptive titles
"...In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim 'made with little or no proof' and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations".)
"However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Because 'Boston Massacre' is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title 'Political impact of the Boston Massacre' would also be acceptable.")
That is all.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 18:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
... (a.) woke ... has been co-opted by the right wing as a shorthand for— to quote our Wikipedia article: b. identity politics, c, cancel culture, d. race-baiting, e. political correctness, f. internet call-out culture, and g. virtue signaling within society's general h. culture war.I've tagged that statement for a citation. These are all contentious, loaded terms/topics. Saying or implying that any or all of them fall under the rubric of "woke(ness)" is highly POV. Giving coverage to
commentators' having used woke as an identifying term for anti-racism methodologiesneeds to be based on independent, secondary sources. An indiscriminate collection of op-eds, blogs, polemics, etc. that happen to use the term aren't enough to show that this expanded meaning of "woke" is sufficiently notable. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
(note - the quote's hypertext @". . One need only look to the pages of Tablet Magazine, National Review, or a seemingly endless parade of podcasts and Substacks to see how common these once-fringe theories have become. And so by the time a local politician encounters them, even the most lunatic of voices . ."
tabletleading to commentary by bari weiss; @ <chuckles> "
most lunatic of voices," to some panelist testimony @ the NH statehouse that incl. mr. james lindsay)
CLICK UPPER-RIGHT MARGIN: I believe a term will arise for "contra 'wokeness'."
| ||
---|---|---|
|
turn up, in normal usage, one day. And editorials like Guerrin's are not reliable for facts. Why do we care what
LeMonde's editor-in-chiefthinks? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 20:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Then, attempting helpful input regarding my question (not with xenophobia), you inquired, Who gives a toss about opinion of M Guerrin?; and, I demonstrated that, concerning coverage of d'homme à homme entre les gentilshommes Mssrs Guerrin et Neef de l'Opéra de Paris, those caring include the Times of London.
(To the question of whether M Guerrin has used the word woke):
In M Guerrin's editorial subsequent to one(s) concerning the Mssrs Guerrin–Neef brouhaha (the one I cited toward the top of the thread), he used woke in English followed by its French translation (about America's allegedly disproportionate political correctness by which M Guerrin's believes French culture might be becoming overly influenced); however, in M Guerrin's specific editorial about Neef and, e.g., operatic " blackface," Guerrin referenced a term also-of-American-origin: cancel culture (about M Neef – who'd formerly been director of the Canadian Opera Company – giving the indication that operas' rightly ought to become cancelled).
The title of the NYT article is "Will American Ideas Tear France Apart? Some of Its Leaders Think So". Unless a reliable source directly links any of the ideas in question with the word "woke", naming them in the article is improper synthesis. The fact that Guerrin's opinions on other topics have been noted by reliable sources doesn't make his opinion on this topic noteworthy. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
warn[] that progressive American ideas — specifically on race, gender, post-colonialism — are undermining [French] society...Next sentence:
as contamination by the out-of-control woke leftism of American campuses and its attendant cancel culture
...echoes of the American culture wars[: ...]Mass protests in France against police violence, inspired by the killing of George Floyd, challenged the official dismissal of race and systemic racism. [ ...A]ctivists prevented the staging of a play by Aeschylus to protest the wearing of masks and dark makeup by white actors [ ... Nathalie Heinich: ] 'It was a series of incidents that was extremely traumatic to our community and that all fell under what is called cancel culture'.........
100...scholars wrote an open letter..........Pierre-André Taguieff:
'...importation' in France of the 'American-style Black question'.........Stéphane Beaud's & Gérard Noiriel's
book critical of racial studies...received extensive news coverage.
do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.-- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Proposal: The current article Woke is about the term itself. Yet, there is also a movement that is against things that encompass said wokeness, along with a few other things. (See, for example, the following information (LINK) by Zorro Maplestone of MDI (non-governmental organizational, based in London, the Media Diversity Institute),
". . if you were reading French newspapers Le Point, Le Figaro, Le Monde, or watching TV channel CNews, you might have believed that the true threat to France is the 'Americanisation' of social sciences in French universities. 'Gender, identities, cancel culture… The fantasy of the American peril': the presumed culprits are made clear, and the front lines are drawn – both across the Atlantic and within universities – for the latest battles of the French culture war. The issue, according to a growing list of critics, would be that French universities are host to 'indigenist, racialist, and "decolonial" ideologies (transferred from North American campuses)…[which]…nourish a hatred of "whites" and of France', as stated in an open letter in the most-read French daily newspaper Le Monde. Some of these critics have even gone so far as to found a semi-satirical Observatory of Decolonialism and Identitarian Ideologies. ."
But—— This counter-movement doesn't yet have a wikientry associated with it; therefore, I suggest, humbly, that we create a new article. And, respectfully, that this entry's name utilize some terminology used by individuals in this counter-movement, while it also follows our wikimanual of style's wise guidelines at wp:NEO that, in cases when there exists non-established (as yet) neologisms, an article title-to-be be composed as a
"descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if[...]somewhat long or awkward"
; therefore, in light of the foregoing – and, also, to scholar-activist Bari Weiss's inability to find a name for it (other than her resort to such as "as-yet-unnamed") in her article here – I humbly propose for the fulfillment of these purposes the title Movement against de-colonialism and identitarian ideologies.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 22:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
terminology used by individuals in this counter-movementin the title is unavoidably POV as well. Which material specifically are you proposing to split off from this article? -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 04:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
resistance to the concept of intersectionality" and defines the phenomenon of anti-(term?) critiques such as Gérard Noiriel's as their concerning, perhaps disparately, "
intersectional feminism, post-colonial studies, critical race studies, cancel culture, the concept of 'woke'-ness, and even the practice of inclusive writing."
"ideology"is contentious. Your own source says "identitarian Leftism" is derisive, and "woke" (as in "woke progressivism") is used as a mocking insult by critics. None of these are neutral descriptions. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 20:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC) edited 22:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
"A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline ( GNG)
below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline ( SNG) listed in the box on the right; and – [negatively] It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy."
"A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject— Thus, inasmuch as our current page covers, in full detail, a sub-topic centered on the word woke, per the-positive- direction "summary-style" guideline, creation of a parent article to woke – as well as parent to intersectionality, intersectional feminism, post-colonial studies, critical race studies, cancel culture, and inclusive writing, political correctness, identity politics (and other manifestations of grievance against the multifarious swaths of oppression) – usefully expand the encyclopedia ( wp:SUMMARY STYLE: "
A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right"). Although, in the hypothetical of were our present article in the future to become expanded from the word woke to developments an overall movement-become-associated-with-its-name (including notable criticisms thereof, per wp:CRIT): then, yes, yet "another" article on woke (in this expanded meaning) would be a fork.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
"Eliane Thoma-Stemmet Explores the Impact of the ' Grievance Culture' narrative in shaming those who speak up about racism into silence and how this has a powerful historical precedent in the British context. - ". . [the Guardian's] Afua . . Hirsch rightly points out that the term 'woke' has in recent years been twisted by conservatives of all kinds to undermine anti-racism. Institutions and individuals hostile to racial justice work are armed with many terms to trivialise an individual’s commitment to fighting inequality. In the case of a BBC skit entitled 'Are You Too Woke?', social justice is presented as a fad for white youth, who will soon grow out of their caricatured, liberal views. More aggressive cases attack 'identity politics' in order to condemn those who speak out about experiences of racial inequality for demanding 'special treatment.' . ."
Although they cannot dominate, opinion pieces are very often of prime importance in giving encyclopedic coverage to subjects of controversy: such, as in our present case's sub-set of the culture wars. To save from repeatedly pushing the exact same combination on my keyboard (...and, Who knows? perhaps resulting in my developing a pernicious carpal-tunnel condition, or something!): When you subsequently come to refer to your contention w/o proper guidelines support, I'll simply write Excelsior! — or better yet, will copy and paste the present, turquoised comment, by way of my reply.<conclude message> -- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 17:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
". . ' anti-racism,' ' cancel culture,' ' racial equity,' ' white privilege' and ' systemic racism' . . ' woke ideology,' ' critical race theory' or ' intersectionality' . . are now regularly invoked by activists, pundits and even some elected officials.[ . . M]any conservatives and Republican officials are now regularly invoking the term 'woke' as an all-encompassing term for liberal ideas they don’t like, particularly ones that have emerged recently[ . . .] Ten views, based on polls and public discourse, that are increasingly influential on the left. This is an informal list, but I think it captures some real sentiments on the left and ideas that people on the right are criticizing when they invoke the term 'woke': 1 . . America has never been a true or full democracy. . . 2 'white privilege' . . 3 . . a broader 'systemic' and 'institutional' racism. 4 . . Capitalism as currently practiced in America is deeply flawed . . 5 . . systemic sexism. 6 . . identify[ing] as whatever gender [. .] prefer[ed] . . 7 . . disparity — for example, Black, Latino or women being underrepresented in a given profession or industry . . 8 . . reparations . . 9 Law enforcement agencies[ . . w]hen they treat people of color or the poor badly . . 10 . . lots of Americans have negative views about people of color, Black people in particular. . ." // ". . most prominent uses of 'woke' are as a pejorative — Republicans attacking Democrats, more centrist Democrats attacking more liberal ones and supporters of the British monarchy using the term to criticize people more sympathetic to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Those critical of so-called woke ideas and people often invoke the idea that they are being 'canceled'[ . . I]deas cast as woke are often coming from progressives and involve identity and race . . "
– is at our lede's 2nd graf. Now that a few sources have begun to show up for this neologism, I've offered a tentative improvement here (diff).-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 17:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)