This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Angry white male article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
"Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space."
Is this better to use instead of the Reference tag? i.e.
In my browser, I did not see the inline prompts but only the Reference prompt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3570:4db0:493a:2ccb:425e:d164 ( talk) 03:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The Oxford (sourced via Lexico) entries can't even agree as to whether it's derogatory or not. "Angry white male" is labelled as derogatory whereas "angry white man" is not. [1] [2] The only other dictionary entry I can find for "angry white man" it is in V.S. Matyushenkov's Dictionary of Americanisms, Briticisms, Canadianisms and Australianisms which also does not label it as derogatory or a pejorative. Aside from these conflicting dictionary definitions, the only other instances I can find of this phrase supposedly being derogatory are instances of websites that rehost Wikipedia content and (as alluded to in the article body) David Leyonhjelm filing a complaint after "angry white male" was used to describe him.
In the case of Leyonhjelm, his complaint was thrown out:
But that has been turned on its head by the commission's decision to rebuff the claim at the first hurdle, declaring Senator Leyonhjelm's public remarks showed he was not truly aggrieved, and that the terms "white" and "male" were not considered terms of denigration.
[3]
Granted, the Australian Human Rights Commission isn't the definite authority on the nature of words but it's the only source I can find of "angry white male"/"angry white man" being commented on by an anti-discriminatory body.
It's easy enough to find instances of the term(s) being used in articles but not so easy to find articles discussing the supposed disparaging nature of the term(s). Given what I have typed above, I don't see how we can safely label it as "derogatory" or "racist" or "pejorative". I think it's best any sort of additional descriptor is left out. Cheers, ToeSchmoker ( talk) 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
References
AFAICT, this seems to be a term used in a few news articles. It lacks a clear definition, an associated field of study, or a useful application. Is every new buzzword like “coastal elites” and “university establishment” worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Oxenfording ( talk) 22:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
28 see alsos is too many. We should put see also links only to a few useful (and the most relevant) related articles. I tried to put a tag to highlight this but it was reverted without a proper explanation. -- Jameboy ( talk) 00:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
What policy or editing guideline says that there are "too many"
Why is this article only limited to America and Australia? Isn't this a global phenomenon? 142.114.116.167 ( talk) 08:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Angry white male article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
"Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space."
Is this better to use instead of the Reference tag? i.e.
In my browser, I did not see the inline prompts but only the Reference prompt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3570:4db0:493a:2ccb:425e:d164 ( talk) 03:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The Oxford (sourced via Lexico) entries can't even agree as to whether it's derogatory or not. "Angry white male" is labelled as derogatory whereas "angry white man" is not. [1] [2] The only other dictionary entry I can find for "angry white man" it is in V.S. Matyushenkov's Dictionary of Americanisms, Briticisms, Canadianisms and Australianisms which also does not label it as derogatory or a pejorative. Aside from these conflicting dictionary definitions, the only other instances I can find of this phrase supposedly being derogatory are instances of websites that rehost Wikipedia content and (as alluded to in the article body) David Leyonhjelm filing a complaint after "angry white male" was used to describe him.
In the case of Leyonhjelm, his complaint was thrown out:
But that has been turned on its head by the commission's decision to rebuff the claim at the first hurdle, declaring Senator Leyonhjelm's public remarks showed he was not truly aggrieved, and that the terms "white" and "male" were not considered terms of denigration.
[3]
Granted, the Australian Human Rights Commission isn't the definite authority on the nature of words but it's the only source I can find of "angry white male"/"angry white man" being commented on by an anti-discriminatory body.
It's easy enough to find instances of the term(s) being used in articles but not so easy to find articles discussing the supposed disparaging nature of the term(s). Given what I have typed above, I don't see how we can safely label it as "derogatory" or "racist" or "pejorative". I think it's best any sort of additional descriptor is left out. Cheers, ToeSchmoker ( talk) 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
References
AFAICT, this seems to be a term used in a few news articles. It lacks a clear definition, an associated field of study, or a useful application. Is every new buzzword like “coastal elites” and “university establishment” worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Oxenfording ( talk) 22:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
28 see alsos is too many. We should put see also links only to a few useful (and the most relevant) related articles. I tried to put a tag to highlight this but it was reverted without a proper explanation. -- Jameboy ( talk) 00:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
What policy or editing guideline says that there are "too many"
Why is this article only limited to America and Australia? Isn't this a global phenomenon? 142.114.116.167 ( talk) 08:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)