![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The article is sometimes vague about what "woke" means and strays to a bigger definition than is supported in the sources the article cites.
The term "woke" refers to identity politics. There is not an issue encompassed by the term that is not related to identity politics. It would be good to limit the article's definitions to this more specific topic. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 03:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The 538 source you cited does not support the content. It only uses 'identity politics' once, saying
"There is a real divide among Democratic elites, with more centrist Democrats arguing that some ideas and behavior on gender, identity and race in particular coming from the party’s left are going too far. Again, this is nothing new. Some centrist Democrats joined conservatives in previous eras who were worried about the civil rights movement, busing and identity politics.
It's drawing a historical parallel with prior actions of conservative democrats. It's no more saying that 'woke' is synonymous with 'identity politics' than it is saying that 'woke' is synonymous with 'busing'. 04:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
but then we're essentially duplicating the last line of the lead, but clearly DenverCoder19 has seized on that given that I see no plausible way that they could possibly be interpreting anything Sangdeboeuf as supporting their position, yet they're still somehow asserting they have a consensus for their changes. DenverCoder19, you can't just assert that something is a compromise, then declare that it has consensus on your own, at least not once people start voicing their objections. If you want to demonstrate consensus for your proposal, point to people who clearly support it, or hold an RFC. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
First used in the 1940s, the term “woke” has resurfaced in recent years as a concept that symbolises awareness of social issues and movement against injustice, inequality, and prejudice.No mention of "identity politics" at all.
As we explained in a piece earlier this week, ideas cast as woke are often coming from progressives and involve identity and race (like the notion that white people in America have privilege or that Black Americans should get reparations.)...
But there is no agreed-upon definition of “woke” or a formal political organization or movement associated with it. Nor is there an exact definition of what constitutes being “canceled” or a victim of “cancel culture.”Only mention of identity politics is a passing mention attributed to conservative democrats, not used to define the term.
"single-word summation of leftist political ideology, centered on social justice politics and critical race theory", quoted in the article. Only mentions identity politics in passing, and again, only when paraphrasing someone criticizing "wokeness."
"to be woke is to be radically aware and justifiably paranoid. It is to be cognizant of the rot pervading the power structures."(opinion piece, no mention of identity at all.)
"While coolness is empty of meaning and interpretation and displays no particular consciousness, woke is explicit and direct regarding injustice, racism, sexism, etc."
excellent summary word, your personal belief that "woke" only covers a list of identities, and your opinion that
race, gender, etc. is central to "woke" because CRT and progressive proponents argue that race, gender are a lens that affects all important issuesare all just your unsupported personal opinions, focuses, and areas you personally emphasize; as I demonstrated above, the sources currently in the article don't reflect that emphasis. Several high-quality sources do not use the word
identityat all, while discussing the fact that that it also covers general injustice and inequality. Many note that it doesn't have a single agreed-upon definition and that its meaning has shifted over time, which, again, makes it clear that the vision of progressive views that you want to use it to present (as being solely about "identity" and nothing else) does not reflect the full range of its usage and meaning. As the sources imply, that is a frequent line of attack against progressive views as expressed by many of the people who use the term as a pejorative; but the term has a long history of being used in other ways, which the sources support and which the article therefore needs to cover. Likewise, when describing it, it's important not to adopt a biased framing or tone, which - based on the sources - implying "ah, it's all about identity politics" certainly is. -- Aquillion ( talk) 10:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
folks of all political leanings use ["woke"] as a perjorative, including many progressives? This has come up a few times already, mostly from users drawing their own conclusions about who is and isn't "progressive" from primary sources using the term "woke". — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 18:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
the term is generally negative outside the US? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Please do not re-add the same edits since Feb 25 without achieving consensus here first. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 03:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
we can’t keep answering these inane complaints about “bias” and “neutrality” on every controversial article; please discuss the actual content meaningfully
Dronebogus (
talk)
08:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
From the topic sentence, this article clearly favors extreme 'woke' people's own definition of the word 'woke'. The more common usage of this word is to describe people that have extreme left-wing views on culture and the correctness of societal organization. This article describes this word when used with that meaning as a 'pejorative', and in using that word specifically, editors (and perhaps overarching moderators) have broken the supposed neutral tone of the article. 'woke' may have a generally negative connotation, but that in itself does not make the word a pejorative. I realize that this comment is quite similar to the one made by Euor, and I share the belief that there is a serious disconnect between how the term 'woke' is described here and how it is most nearly always used in real life debates. Moderators need not be blinded by their ideals when their most "reliable sources" do not publish the most correct information in regards to how 'woke' is most commonly used in the modern-day vernacular of different countries, not how it was used by a certain racial group centuries ago. MITG260 ( talk) 03:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
|
The
Vox article only implies that Garvey's 1923 work was among the earliest known examples of wokeness as a concept
, not the first one as claimed.
"Black political involvement" is quite vague – involvement with what? Romano actually describes this as Black consciousness
and a new activist framework
. The source does not mention
Black nationalism, making that characterization
unduly weighted and verging on
improper synthesis. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
08:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
woke, using it here might be synthesis - you can't combine two sources to reach a conclusion or implication not present in either of them. The Vox source says that
The earliest known examples of wokeness as a concept revolve around the idea of Black consciousness “waking up” to a new reality or activist framework and dates back to the early 20th century. In 1923, a collection of aphorisms and ideas by the Jamaican philosopher and social activist Marcus Garvey included the summons “Wake up Ethiopia! Wake up Africa!” as a call to global Black citizens to become more socially and politically conscious, so if we rely on that source to discuss that early usage, we should reflect the way Vox describes him. It doesn't mention anything about him being a black nationalist. Taking that source, and combining it with a second source that calls him a black nationalist but which doesn't mention the term "woke", is synthesis in the sense that you're concluding that it's significant that one early usage of the term "Woke" was by a black nationalist, when neither source supports that conclusion individually. (We'd also be implying that he used the term as a black nationalist - ie. he used it during the period of his life where he supported black nationalism - which neither source supports and which isn't necessarily a valid conclusion.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 10:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Some of the earliest recorded uses of being or becoming awake as a metaphor for Black political consciousness..., and the connection you're drawing between that and the term "woke", is your personal opinion (in terms of its connection to the evolution of the term) and your personal research. And if we do use the Vox source then we have to reflect what it says. We can exclude Garvey completely if you don't think the connection between him and the term "woke" is well-sourced enough - I can buy the argument that one mention in a Vox article is insufficient, in which case we ought to take him out entirely - but we can't include a connection based solely on sources that don't actually make it; and if we do use sources that make it, we have to rely on what they say rather than performing WP:OR / WP:SYNTH by combining them with other descriptions of Garvey. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I added the following:
User:Muboshgu deleted it and commented, "we don't want your opinion in an article."
OK. That seems reasonable. My opinion should not be in the article.
That being said, the New York Times quote, on its own, is an aspect of wokeism that I think should be included in the article.
In addition to that particular example, there are many other reliably sourced examples of opposition to racism being used as justification for the lowering of academic standards. Here are some of those other examples:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-school-board-strips-Lowell-High-of-its-15938565.php
In each and every one of these reliably sourced examples, opposition to racism is being used as justification for the lowering of acamedemic standards.
This is a very notable and reliably sourced aspect of wokeism, and should be included in this article.
SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 20:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC) SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 20:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
These are examples of wokismaccording to whom? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments everyone. I don't want to violate the rules that you pointed out. I also see that someone improved the title of this discussion section. I'm learning lots of useful things from you. I appreciate that.
Does anyone know if there is some other wikipedia article where it would be appropriate to discuss those sources on the talk page? It seems to me that the subject of those articles is notable enough to be included somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Can anyone here suggest an article where it would be appropriate for me to bring this up at the talk page?
SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 18:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
References
I think there is a certain disconnect between this article, and the term and phenomena as it exists in the world at the moment (and which has been so for quite a while). I see this strongly outside the United States, not being American myself, but also when I am looking _in_. This article, it seems, started off based on the adjective woke, discussing it as a term, using its original orthodox meaning. The current situation, it seems, is rather about a claimed phenomenon of "wokeness" or "wokery" or some "awokening" - all terms I've seen used often - that many cultural critics perceive and debate in society, both in and outside the United States. As such the article seems to miss the mark. This debate and criticism, I suppose occurring partially within the so-called "culture war" (I shudder at the term), is also not restricted to the right side of politics. I am aware the right side of politics in the Anglosphere (and countries like Italy, etc.) have declared some "anti-woke" crusade for political purposes, but criticism of alleged "wokeness" in and of itself doesn't appear to be restricted to party lines. Outside the United States, criticism seems fairly ubiquitous on both mainstream left and right, while also within the United States, the criticism of perceived "wokeness" occurs on the Left as well (take, say, self-proclaimed leftist Bill Maher's non-stop complaints about wokeness, or (also claimed Democrat) John McWhorter's criticism that includes a book on an alleged "Woke Religion"). In short, I think the article fails to capture that the term has morphed into a pretty strong debate about a cultural trend or mentality or phenomenon, and that this is its primary common usage today. I would have loved an article managing to discuss this and pin it down a bit, since I think we all have noticed how the term "woke" has become an extremely elastic and vague term. Also because it seems to be extremely central to understanding many of the deeper cultural debates going on today. Thoughts? Euor ( talk) 02:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
the current situation, but for our purposes, the only relevant thing is what is published in reliable sources.
Cultural criticsare a dime a dozen, and culture-warrior debate and criticism from the usual places (op-eds, blogs, etc.) is generally not enough to satisfy due weight requirements. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 10:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
is irrelevant without a published, reliable source commenting on it. What WP userspoliticalpublic debate
know and detectfrom
watching the TVetc. doesn't count – please read No original research. --22:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 12:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC))
Any-- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 17:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 12:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC))politicalpublic debate is irrelevant without a published, reliable source commenting on it. What WP users know and detect from watching the TV etc. doesn't count – please read No original research.
The article does not resemble much of the current situation on earth. Its a US centric view, biased and missing out on the underlying Neo-Marxist's strategies for identity politics.
I know Wikipeadia essentially gave up on neutrality and is a central part of the censorship and narrative industry, but even ChatGPT's descripten of woke is better, less biased and does not hide the relation to Neo-Marxism. 2A01:598:B183:714F:FAB8:54C1:E976:F0B2 ( talk) 20:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
the underlying Neo-Marxist's strategies for identity politicsto this article? – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I understand there are different definitions of woke. Isn t one of them from the political right used to describe those on the political left. in a unflattering way? Harry12555 ( talk) 21:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
This article should mention how, within recent weeks, the term "woke" is being misunderstood and abused by cerain people and groups in the United States. "Woke" is not exclusively an Afro-American term or a "Liberal" term. It has been adopted by people in all walks of life, often for the better but sometimes for the worse. Some people are trying to weaponize the word for their own intent. This article must include such data. Riffel2023 ( talk) 20:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Dear contributors,
I am surprised not to see the mention of the neologism "wokeism" in the current article. Yet, there has been multiple reliable sources that used the term, even in the title of some researches:
1. Phiri, Peter (2023). "Wokeism: A Critical Analysis of its Impact on Society and the Emergence of Woke Capitalism". Diversity & Equality in Health and Care, 20 (3). doi:10.21767/2049-5471.20.03.20. ISSN: 2049-5471
2. Cammaerts, B. (2022). "The abnormalisation of social justice: The ‘anti-woke culture war’ discourse in the UK". Discourse & Society, 33 (6). 730–743. doi:10.1177/09579265221095407.
3. Weisman, Dennis L. (2023). "Can You Have Your Corporate Wokeism and Eat it too?". The Economists’ Voice. doi:10.1515/ev-2022-0035
Do I need to provide more reliable sources to suggest the inclusion of the word "wokeism" in the article as a relevant academic neologism?
Sincerely, Xavharel ( talk) 16:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
'woke culture', 'woke opinion', [...] 'woke times', 'woke agenda', 'woke elite', 'woke dogma', 'woke ideology', 'woke activists', 'woke mindset', 'woke society', 'woke causes', 'woke broadcast media', 'woke insanity', 'woke mob' and 'woke Britain'. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
In my recent edits I made reference to the use of the term "woke" as a pejorative for opponents against Hindu Nationalism in the Indian context since such a use is common amongst Indian social media users. But I don't know yet the origin of the usage. So I added it as an uncited edit on Wikipedia with a CN tag so that the other editors can cooperate and help me on this matter. But instead I have noticed that they are reverting my edits.
I request the editors to allow me to restore my edit, then ask the other editors to add citations to my claim. Anirudh131819 ( talk) 07:01, 14 July 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)
|
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The article is sometimes vague about what "woke" means and strays to a bigger definition than is supported in the sources the article cites.
The term "woke" refers to identity politics. There is not an issue encompassed by the term that is not related to identity politics. It would be good to limit the article's definitions to this more specific topic. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 03:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The 538 source you cited does not support the content. It only uses 'identity politics' once, saying
"There is a real divide among Democratic elites, with more centrist Democrats arguing that some ideas and behavior on gender, identity and race in particular coming from the party’s left are going too far. Again, this is nothing new. Some centrist Democrats joined conservatives in previous eras who were worried about the civil rights movement, busing and identity politics.
It's drawing a historical parallel with prior actions of conservative democrats. It's no more saying that 'woke' is synonymous with 'identity politics' than it is saying that 'woke' is synonymous with 'busing'. 04:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
but then we're essentially duplicating the last line of the lead, but clearly DenverCoder19 has seized on that given that I see no plausible way that they could possibly be interpreting anything Sangdeboeuf as supporting their position, yet they're still somehow asserting they have a consensus for their changes. DenverCoder19, you can't just assert that something is a compromise, then declare that it has consensus on your own, at least not once people start voicing their objections. If you want to demonstrate consensus for your proposal, point to people who clearly support it, or hold an RFC. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
First used in the 1940s, the term “woke” has resurfaced in recent years as a concept that symbolises awareness of social issues and movement against injustice, inequality, and prejudice.No mention of "identity politics" at all.
As we explained in a piece earlier this week, ideas cast as woke are often coming from progressives and involve identity and race (like the notion that white people in America have privilege or that Black Americans should get reparations.)...
But there is no agreed-upon definition of “woke” or a formal political organization or movement associated with it. Nor is there an exact definition of what constitutes being “canceled” or a victim of “cancel culture.”Only mention of identity politics is a passing mention attributed to conservative democrats, not used to define the term.
"single-word summation of leftist political ideology, centered on social justice politics and critical race theory", quoted in the article. Only mentions identity politics in passing, and again, only when paraphrasing someone criticizing "wokeness."
"to be woke is to be radically aware and justifiably paranoid. It is to be cognizant of the rot pervading the power structures."(opinion piece, no mention of identity at all.)
"While coolness is empty of meaning and interpretation and displays no particular consciousness, woke is explicit and direct regarding injustice, racism, sexism, etc."
excellent summary word, your personal belief that "woke" only covers a list of identities, and your opinion that
race, gender, etc. is central to "woke" because CRT and progressive proponents argue that race, gender are a lens that affects all important issuesare all just your unsupported personal opinions, focuses, and areas you personally emphasize; as I demonstrated above, the sources currently in the article don't reflect that emphasis. Several high-quality sources do not use the word
identityat all, while discussing the fact that that it also covers general injustice and inequality. Many note that it doesn't have a single agreed-upon definition and that its meaning has shifted over time, which, again, makes it clear that the vision of progressive views that you want to use it to present (as being solely about "identity" and nothing else) does not reflect the full range of its usage and meaning. As the sources imply, that is a frequent line of attack against progressive views as expressed by many of the people who use the term as a pejorative; but the term has a long history of being used in other ways, which the sources support and which the article therefore needs to cover. Likewise, when describing it, it's important not to adopt a biased framing or tone, which - based on the sources - implying "ah, it's all about identity politics" certainly is. -- Aquillion ( talk) 10:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
folks of all political leanings use ["woke"] as a perjorative, including many progressives? This has come up a few times already, mostly from users drawing their own conclusions about who is and isn't "progressive" from primary sources using the term "woke". — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 18:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
the term is generally negative outside the US? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Please do not re-add the same edits since Feb 25 without achieving consensus here first. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 03:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
we can’t keep answering these inane complaints about “bias” and “neutrality” on every controversial article; please discuss the actual content meaningfully
Dronebogus (
talk)
08:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
From the topic sentence, this article clearly favors extreme 'woke' people's own definition of the word 'woke'. The more common usage of this word is to describe people that have extreme left-wing views on culture and the correctness of societal organization. This article describes this word when used with that meaning as a 'pejorative', and in using that word specifically, editors (and perhaps overarching moderators) have broken the supposed neutral tone of the article. 'woke' may have a generally negative connotation, but that in itself does not make the word a pejorative. I realize that this comment is quite similar to the one made by Euor, and I share the belief that there is a serious disconnect between how the term 'woke' is described here and how it is most nearly always used in real life debates. Moderators need not be blinded by their ideals when their most "reliable sources" do not publish the most correct information in regards to how 'woke' is most commonly used in the modern-day vernacular of different countries, not how it was used by a certain racial group centuries ago. MITG260 ( talk) 03:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
|
The
Vox article only implies that Garvey's 1923 work was among the earliest known examples of wokeness as a concept
, not the first one as claimed.
"Black political involvement" is quite vague – involvement with what? Romano actually describes this as Black consciousness
and a new activist framework
. The source does not mention
Black nationalism, making that characterization
unduly weighted and verging on
improper synthesis. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
08:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
woke, using it here might be synthesis - you can't combine two sources to reach a conclusion or implication not present in either of them. The Vox source says that
The earliest known examples of wokeness as a concept revolve around the idea of Black consciousness “waking up” to a new reality or activist framework and dates back to the early 20th century. In 1923, a collection of aphorisms and ideas by the Jamaican philosopher and social activist Marcus Garvey included the summons “Wake up Ethiopia! Wake up Africa!” as a call to global Black citizens to become more socially and politically conscious, so if we rely on that source to discuss that early usage, we should reflect the way Vox describes him. It doesn't mention anything about him being a black nationalist. Taking that source, and combining it with a second source that calls him a black nationalist but which doesn't mention the term "woke", is synthesis in the sense that you're concluding that it's significant that one early usage of the term "Woke" was by a black nationalist, when neither source supports that conclusion individually. (We'd also be implying that he used the term as a black nationalist - ie. he used it during the period of his life where he supported black nationalism - which neither source supports and which isn't necessarily a valid conclusion.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 10:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Some of the earliest recorded uses of being or becoming awake as a metaphor for Black political consciousness..., and the connection you're drawing between that and the term "woke", is your personal opinion (in terms of its connection to the evolution of the term) and your personal research. And if we do use the Vox source then we have to reflect what it says. We can exclude Garvey completely if you don't think the connection between him and the term "woke" is well-sourced enough - I can buy the argument that one mention in a Vox article is insufficient, in which case we ought to take him out entirely - but we can't include a connection based solely on sources that don't actually make it; and if we do use sources that make it, we have to rely on what they say rather than performing WP:OR / WP:SYNTH by combining them with other descriptions of Garvey. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I added the following:
User:Muboshgu deleted it and commented, "we don't want your opinion in an article."
OK. That seems reasonable. My opinion should not be in the article.
That being said, the New York Times quote, on its own, is an aspect of wokeism that I think should be included in the article.
In addition to that particular example, there are many other reliably sourced examples of opposition to racism being used as justification for the lowering of academic standards. Here are some of those other examples:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-school-board-strips-Lowell-High-of-its-15938565.php
In each and every one of these reliably sourced examples, opposition to racism is being used as justification for the lowering of acamedemic standards.
This is a very notable and reliably sourced aspect of wokeism, and should be included in this article.
SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 20:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC) SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 20:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
These are examples of wokismaccording to whom? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments everyone. I don't want to violate the rules that you pointed out. I also see that someone improved the title of this discussion section. I'm learning lots of useful things from you. I appreciate that.
Does anyone know if there is some other wikipedia article where it would be appropriate to discuss those sources on the talk page? It seems to me that the subject of those articles is notable enough to be included somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Can anyone here suggest an article where it would be appropriate for me to bring this up at the talk page?
SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 18:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
References
I think there is a certain disconnect between this article, and the term and phenomena as it exists in the world at the moment (and which has been so for quite a while). I see this strongly outside the United States, not being American myself, but also when I am looking _in_. This article, it seems, started off based on the adjective woke, discussing it as a term, using its original orthodox meaning. The current situation, it seems, is rather about a claimed phenomenon of "wokeness" or "wokery" or some "awokening" - all terms I've seen used often - that many cultural critics perceive and debate in society, both in and outside the United States. As such the article seems to miss the mark. This debate and criticism, I suppose occurring partially within the so-called "culture war" (I shudder at the term), is also not restricted to the right side of politics. I am aware the right side of politics in the Anglosphere (and countries like Italy, etc.) have declared some "anti-woke" crusade for political purposes, but criticism of alleged "wokeness" in and of itself doesn't appear to be restricted to party lines. Outside the United States, criticism seems fairly ubiquitous on both mainstream left and right, while also within the United States, the criticism of perceived "wokeness" occurs on the Left as well (take, say, self-proclaimed leftist Bill Maher's non-stop complaints about wokeness, or (also claimed Democrat) John McWhorter's criticism that includes a book on an alleged "Woke Religion"). In short, I think the article fails to capture that the term has morphed into a pretty strong debate about a cultural trend or mentality or phenomenon, and that this is its primary common usage today. I would have loved an article managing to discuss this and pin it down a bit, since I think we all have noticed how the term "woke" has become an extremely elastic and vague term. Also because it seems to be extremely central to understanding many of the deeper cultural debates going on today. Thoughts? Euor ( talk) 02:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
the current situation, but for our purposes, the only relevant thing is what is published in reliable sources.
Cultural criticsare a dime a dozen, and culture-warrior debate and criticism from the usual places (op-eds, blogs, etc.) is generally not enough to satisfy due weight requirements. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 10:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
is irrelevant without a published, reliable source commenting on it. What WP userspoliticalpublic debate
know and detectfrom
watching the TVetc. doesn't count – please read No original research. --22:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 12:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC))
Any-- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 17:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 12:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC))politicalpublic debate is irrelevant without a published, reliable source commenting on it. What WP users know and detect from watching the TV etc. doesn't count – please read No original research.
The article does not resemble much of the current situation on earth. Its a US centric view, biased and missing out on the underlying Neo-Marxist's strategies for identity politics.
I know Wikipeadia essentially gave up on neutrality and is a central part of the censorship and narrative industry, but even ChatGPT's descripten of woke is better, less biased and does not hide the relation to Neo-Marxism. 2A01:598:B183:714F:FAB8:54C1:E976:F0B2 ( talk) 20:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
the underlying Neo-Marxist's strategies for identity politicsto this article? – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I understand there are different definitions of woke. Isn t one of them from the political right used to describe those on the political left. in a unflattering way? Harry12555 ( talk) 21:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
This article should mention how, within recent weeks, the term "woke" is being misunderstood and abused by cerain people and groups in the United States. "Woke" is not exclusively an Afro-American term or a "Liberal" term. It has been adopted by people in all walks of life, often for the better but sometimes for the worse. Some people are trying to weaponize the word for their own intent. This article must include such data. Riffel2023 ( talk) 20:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Dear contributors,
I am surprised not to see the mention of the neologism "wokeism" in the current article. Yet, there has been multiple reliable sources that used the term, even in the title of some researches:
1. Phiri, Peter (2023). "Wokeism: A Critical Analysis of its Impact on Society and the Emergence of Woke Capitalism". Diversity & Equality in Health and Care, 20 (3). doi:10.21767/2049-5471.20.03.20. ISSN: 2049-5471
2. Cammaerts, B. (2022). "The abnormalisation of social justice: The ‘anti-woke culture war’ discourse in the UK". Discourse & Society, 33 (6). 730–743. doi:10.1177/09579265221095407.
3. Weisman, Dennis L. (2023). "Can You Have Your Corporate Wokeism and Eat it too?". The Economists’ Voice. doi:10.1515/ev-2022-0035
Do I need to provide more reliable sources to suggest the inclusion of the word "wokeism" in the article as a relevant academic neologism?
Sincerely, Xavharel ( talk) 16:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
'woke culture', 'woke opinion', [...] 'woke times', 'woke agenda', 'woke elite', 'woke dogma', 'woke ideology', 'woke activists', 'woke mindset', 'woke society', 'woke causes', 'woke broadcast media', 'woke insanity', 'woke mob' and 'woke Britain'. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
In my recent edits I made reference to the use of the term "woke" as a pejorative for opponents against Hindu Nationalism in the Indian context since such a use is common amongst Indian social media users. But I don't know yet the origin of the usage. So I added it as an uncited edit on Wikipedia with a CN tag so that the other editors can cooperate and help me on this matter. But instead I have noticed that they are reverting my edits.
I request the editors to allow me to restore my edit, then ask the other editors to add citations to my claim. Anirudh131819 ( talk) 07:01, 14 July 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)
|