Sangdeboeuf (talk | contribs) →Suggested edits: Replying to Hodgdon's secret garden (using reply-link) |
Hodgdon's secret garden (talk | contribs) →Suggested edits: wording error |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
:::::::::::(1) Recasting a question ain't a "repetition" except if and only if both essentially say the same thing (which they, of course, didn't). (2) Per my reading of Anne's piece ("The New Puritans: Social codes are changing, in many ways for the better. But for those whose behavior doesn't adapt fast enough to the new norms, judgment can be swift—and merciless") she alludes in title and ''dek'' to diametrically-opposed perspectives. Which, in the article's text itself (I suppose for the benefit of living in a cave away from mass media for a decade), she specifies these same with their by now usual codification as a debate of "woke" vs. its "anti-" (via her words): {{tq|"dig into the story of anyone who has been a genuine victim of modern mob justice and you will often find not an obvious argument between 'woke' and 'anti-woke' perspectives but rather incidents that are interpreted, described, or remembered by different people in different ways, even leaving aside whatever political or intellectual issue might be at stake"}}.--[[User:Hodgdon's secret garden|Hodgdon's secret garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgdon's secret garden|talk]]) 21:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
:::::::::::(1) Recasting a question ain't a "repetition" except if and only if both essentially say the same thing (which they, of course, didn't). (2) Per my reading of Anne's piece ("The New Puritans: Social codes are changing, in many ways for the better. But for those whose behavior doesn't adapt fast enough to the new norms, judgment can be swift—and merciless") she alludes in title and ''dek'' to diametrically-opposed perspectives. Which, in the article's text itself (I suppose for the benefit of living in a cave away from mass media for a decade), she specifies these same with their by now usual codification as a debate of "woke" vs. its "anti-" (via her words): {{tq|"dig into the story of anyone who has been a genuine victim of modern mob justice and you will often find not an obvious argument between 'woke' and 'anti-woke' perspectives but rather incidents that are interpreted, described, or remembered by different people in different ways, even leaving aside whatever political or intellectual issue might be at stake"}}.--[[User:Hodgdon's secret garden|Hodgdon's secret garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgdon's secret garden|talk]]) 21:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::{{tq|[Y]ou will often find {{strong|not}} an obvious argument between 'woke' and 'anti-woke' perspectives ...}} Please explain what you think the word "not" means in that sentence, because we seem to think it means different things. --[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 21:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
::::::::::::{{tq|[Y]ou will often find {{strong|not}} an obvious argument between 'woke' and 'anti-woke' perspectives ...}} Please explain what you think the word "not" means in that sentence, because we seem to think it means different things. --[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 21:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::::Sure. An item doesn't have to equate to Aristotlean "A." (''affirmo'') / "E." (''nego'') statements wherein "S." (subject) "always"/"never" P. (predicate) for it to be useful on Wikipedia. From her context (via its preceding pair of sentences "{{tq|despite the disputed nature of these cases, it has become both easy and useful for some people to put them into larger narratives}}" - & - "{{tq|Partisans, especially on the right, now toss around the phrase cancel culture when they want to defend themselves from criticism, however legitimate}}"), what Anne's is saying here seems pretty straightforward, IMHO. Which is that individual disputes Re behavior/speech Anne will be referring to won't neatly fold into the larger narrative of 'woke'-v.-'its-"anti-."' Which likewise implies that this larger, overarching debate nonetheless ''is'' being played out in part within these very disputes. <small>Viz, types "I." / "O." that are of the nature, ''Some'' S. are/are not P.</small> Thus: the usefulness to which Anne refers via "{{tq|it has become .. useful for some people to put them into larger narratives}}."--[[User:Hodgdon's secret garden|Hodgdon's secret garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgdon's secret garden|talk]]) 22:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:15, 16 September 2021
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allyborghi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Watkina, Abamzai, Ujwalamurthy.
Term becoming internationalized
- elespanol.com[1] - 19 series y películas de derechas para escapar del tsunami woke
Transl.: "19 right-wing series and movies to escape the woke tsunami"
- standaard.be[2] - ‘Ik word wat moe van al dat woke-gedoe. Ook mannen kunnen voor vrouwenrechten opkomen.’ Conner Rousseau bekeert zich tot het antiwoke-kamp
Transl.: "'I'm getting tired of all this woke stuff. Men can also stand up for women's rights.' Conner Rousseau converts to the anti-woke camp"
- volkskrant.nl/[3] - ‘Radicale woke- en genderactivisten .. en wie zich niet aan het ondoorgrondelijke lexicon van de ‘wokies’ houdt, wordt simpelweg opgeheven.
Transl.: "Antiwoke critics often hardly bother to define concepts like cancel culture or censorship .. those who do not adhere to the inscrutable lexicon of the 'wokies' are simply eliminated."
- document.no[4] Minerva går «woke», et konservativt medium begår selvmord' Nylig publiserte kulturredaktøren i Minerva en artikkel som argumenterer for at de av oss som kritiserer woke-kulturen, bør senke skuldrene.
Transl.:"Minerva goes «woke», a conservative medium commits suicide' Recently, the cultural editor of Minerva published an article arguing that those of us who criticize woke culture should shrug our shoulders."
Et cetera
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC) - This (from polskieradio24.pl[5] is from 2 days ago.
"wokeizmu" (od ang. "woke" – "przebudzony", czyli patrzenia na świat przez pryzmat faktycznych i rzekomych nierówności społecznych i rasowych).
Machine translation: "'vokeism' (from 'woke' - 'awakened', that is, looking at the world through the prism of actual and alleged social and racial inequalities)." Another uses in the article: "a consequence of the 'leftist voke agenda'"
- three days ago (from ujszo[6]):
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)"Ehhez nyilván hozzájárult az is, hogy a prof televíziós viták sorában állt ki az elvei mellett, közben többször is összetűzésbe került az amerikai „woke” mozgalom aktivistáival, amiért aztán az ún. alt-right, vagyis az amerikai alternatív jobboldal próbált belőle hőst csinálni."
Machine translation: "This was obviously contributed to by the fact that the prof[ Jordan B. Peterson ]stood up for his principles in a series of television debates, while he clashed several times with activists of the American 'woke' movement, for which the so-called alt-right, i.e. the American alternative right, tried to make him a hero."
No coverage given non-Right critics seeing Woke activism as a new Puritanism( &c)
- gq-magazine.co.uk[7] - Woke or not, the culture wars make hypocrites of us all: Whether it's woke puritanism or anti-woke cynicism, participation in the culture war is also a guarantee of hypocrisy and bad faith. That's because nobody can live up to the standards they set for others
- 31aug2021theAtlantic.com (Anne Applebaum)[8]: "THE NEW PURITANS: Social codes are changing, in many ways for the better. But for those whose behavior doesn’t adapt fast enough to the new norms, judgment can be swift—and merciless.[ .. D]espite the disputed nature of these cases, it has become both easy and useful for some people to put them into larger narratives. Partisans, especially on the right, now toss around the phrase cancel culture when they want to defend themselves from criticism, however legitimate. But dig into the story of anyone who has been a genuine victim of modern mob justice and you will often find not an obvious argument between “woke” and “anti-woke” perspectives but rather incidents that are interpreted, described, or remembered by different people in different ways, even leaving aside whatever political or intellectual issue might be at stake. .. "
- thos. edsall's 14jul2021 weekly nytimes column[9]: ".. Democrats, if they want to protect their fragile majority, must be doubly careful not to hand their adversaries ever more powerful weapons." Quoting andrew sullivan (although labeled somewhat libertarian, a biden voter/early obama booster): "Look how far the left’s war on liberalism has gone. Due process? If you’re a male on campus, gone. Privacy? Stripped away — by anonymous rape accusations, exposure of private emails, violence against people’s private homes, screaming at folks in restaurants, sordid exposés of sexual encounters, eagerly published by woke mags. .. "
etc.
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)- As has been explained many times on this page already, opinion pieces are primary sources. Opinion writers' careers depend on their ability to deliver spicy takes, not sober, reasoned analysis, and this article already cites too many of them IMO. Articles should be based on reliable, secondary sources to avoid giving undue weight to such manufactured outrage. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's not unbiased editors' job to decide whether Woke or anti-Woke sensibilities/outrage are manufactured or legit and Sangdeboeuf's appearance to think it is might reasonably indicate hi/r not belonging on this page. See Wikipedia:Impartial: "Wikipedia describes disputes." The article at present engages in them via favoring only non-disparaging analyses, whereas good-faith perusals of wp's guidelines en toto would entail screwing obvious skews. You know, denial is more than a river in egypt and willfully ignoring wikipedia:Balance's imperative about "describing opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint" and its corollaries throughout the guidelines doesn't enable truthful claims of unawareness such exist.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I do think we should describe the non-right critique of 'woke' clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources. Have you come across any? You also appear to be manufacturing a straw man version of Sangdebouef's argument to suggest that they shouldn't participate in this discussion; Sangdebouef did not suggest that it's our "job to decide whether Woke or anti-Woke sensibilities/outrage are manufactured or legit". In fact, in suggesting that we look for secondary source coverage of the view, they are pushing us toward exactly the procedure to avoid making such a decision. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- The editor seems to be hovering over the article: eg I just tried to make a subhead refer to "disparagement" instead of "pejorative" & the claim was made that WP must rely solely on sources that so label it. Come on. Academic inquiry requires that varying viewpoints' airings, pro and con arguments' consideration. Each instance of this is called opinion. 2ndary sources making note of these opinions confer on them so-called notability. If certain editors here believe criticisms of woke socially unacceptable, sure, such prominence given on WP to the designation of all instances of the same as "perjorative" at least makes sense, in that light. But, not from the standpoint of our guidelines which emphasize absolutely stringent neutrality on issues! Indeed, prominence given on WP to this designation as applied all such criticism makes it seem WP -- instead of our following the form: So-and-so argues thus; so-and-so argues thus -- endorse solely "So and so argues thus" but without rejoinder, criticism thereof inferred as socially unacceptable. Per my editorial senses -- and my voice counts -- is that "pejorative" carries baggage of association with eg
d*ck or whateverrespective sexual organ for a person-perceived-of-as-overbearing of one/another gender...suffix -tard; British[ slang for cigarette]; n-word,[ slang for female dog]; boy in reference to a man; blah blah blah: which are all[, "also!", ]socially unacceptable. (Or, if ever borderline acceptable, never so in polite company.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)- If you continue to feel that Sangdebouef's conduct here is inappropriate, the first step in conduct dispute resolution is to discuss it with them politely at their user talk page. As far as this article is concerned, I think the sources are better summarized by pejorative/derision than disapproval. Your edit made some other improvements that I intend to restore, so thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- It can be seen the, well, the um-teen times section reiterates "
Writing in The Guardian, the commentator Steve Rose writes that the political right has "weaponised" the term woke
" seems a bit much. Rather than its reading, "the Right", blah blah blah, "the Right," blah blah blah, "the Right"), when unbiased & full-spectrum reportage includes a slew of other criticisms, at minimum, the section should include, by way of balance, such reportages as by journalist-&-historian Anne Applebaum (see my above quote of her), plus utilize such as her as a 2ndary-source providing requisite notability to such nuanced & non-Right opinions about woke of John McWhorter / of such victims of woke outrage as given media coverage by Applebaum (and others) such as Ian Buruma and others).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)- Applebaum's piece is a polemic, not a reliable secondary source. Further, she is using the term "woke" and "wokeness" – in quotation marks, mind –
as a synonym for moral panicin passing. She is not commenting on use of the term by others, as a secondary source would. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC) edited 00:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC) - As I have stated already on this page, I don't think the Steve Rose column is a useful source, and I would be fine with removing it entirely. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Applebaum's piece is a polemic, not a reliable secondary source. Further, she is using the term "woke" and "wokeness" – in quotation marks, mind –
- It can be seen the, well, the um-teen times section reiterates "
- If you continue to feel that Sangdebouef's conduct here is inappropriate, the first step in conduct dispute resolution is to discuss it with them politely at their user talk page. As far as this article is concerned, I think the sources are better summarized by pejorative/derision than disapproval. Your edit made some other improvements that I intend to restore, so thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- The editor seems to be hovering over the article: eg I just tried to make a subhead refer to "disparagement" instead of "pejorative" & the claim was made that WP must rely solely on sources that so label it. Come on. Academic inquiry requires that varying viewpoints' airings, pro and con arguments' consideration. Each instance of this is called opinion. 2ndary sources making note of these opinions confer on them so-called notability. If certain editors here believe criticisms of woke socially unacceptable, sure, such prominence given on WP to the designation of all instances of the same as "perjorative" at least makes sense, in that light. But, not from the standpoint of our guidelines which emphasize absolutely stringent neutrality on issues! Indeed, prominence given on WP to this designation as applied all such criticism makes it seem WP -- instead of our following the form: So-and-so argues thus; so-and-so argues thus -- endorse solely "So and so argues thus" but without rejoinder, criticism thereof inferred as socially unacceptable. Per my editorial senses -- and my voice counts -- is that "pejorative" carries baggage of association with eg
Wikipedia:Balance's imperative about "describing opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint"
– I quite agree with this approach. However, none of the quoted pieces are "disinterested". They each have a point of view to advance. That's the whole purpose of opinion essays. The third essay hardly mentions "woke(ness)" at all; Sullivan's use of the term is basically a throwaway which the author, Edsall, does not bother to elaborate upon. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I do think we should describe the non-right critique of 'woke' clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources. Have you come across any? You also appear to be manufacturing a straw man version of Sangdebouef's argument to suggest that they shouldn't participate in this discussion; Sangdebouef did not suggest that it's our "job to decide whether Woke or anti-Woke sensibilities/outrage are manufactured or legit". In fact, in suggesting that we look for secondary source coverage of the view, they are pushing us toward exactly the procedure to avoid making such a decision. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's not unbiased editors' job to decide whether Woke or anti-Woke sensibilities/outrage are manufactured or legit and Sangdeboeuf's appearance to think it is might reasonably indicate hi/r not belonging on this page. See Wikipedia:Impartial: "Wikipedia describes disputes." The article at present engages in them via favoring only non-disparaging analyses, whereas good-faith perusals of wp's guidelines en toto would entail screwing obvious skews. You know, denial is more than a river in egypt and willfully ignoring wikipedia:Balance's imperative about "describing opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint" and its corollaries throughout the guidelines doesn't enable truthful claims of unawareness such exist.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I reiterate that WP's limiting criticsm of woke to its use as a slur implies any such critique must be thought impolitely censorious. (McWhorter in the Times[10]:
"However, anthropological reality is that today, slurs have become our profanity: repellent to our senses, rendering even words that sound like them suspicious and eliciting not only censure but also punishment."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)- I disagree that the article implies that any critique of "woke(ness)" is impolitely censorious, and the article does summarize criticism of the term's use that is not pejorative: We quote several sources critiquing the term's cultural appropriation, including Amanda Hess and Chloé Valdary, as well as Andrew Sullivan, Tehama Lopez Bunyasi and Candis Watts Smith critiquing what the term represents. What McWhorter or anybody else says about unrelated topics is irrelevant. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
"Pejorative" section title
The use of the term by opponents of perceived wokeness is best summed up as "pejorative". According to the sources cited:
Among conservatives, 'woke' has been adopted as term of derision for those who hold progressive social justice views.[1]In the six years since Brown’s death, 'woke' has evolved into a single-word summation of leftist political ideology [...] This framing of 'woke' is bipartisan: It’s used as a shorthand for political progressiveness by the left, and as a denigration of leftist culture by the right.[2][I]n culture and politics today, the 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.[3]Some people say being woke is a sign of awareness to social issues, others whip out the term as an insult [...] It has become a common term of derision among some who oppose the movements it is associated with, or believe the issues are exaggerated.[4]
- ^ Smith, Allan; Kapur, Sahil (May 2, 2021). "Republicans are crusading against 'woke'". NBC News.
- ^ Romano, Aja (9 October 2020). "A history of 'wokeness'". Vox.
- ^ Bacon, Perry Jr. (17 March 2021). "Why Attacking 'Cancel Culture' And 'Woke' People Is Becoming The GOP's New Political Strategy". FiveThirtyEight.
- ^ Butterworth, Benjamin (26 June 2021). "What does 'woke' actually mean, and why are some people so angry about it?". inews.co.uk.
"Denigration" and "derision" mean belittling, attacking, ridiculing. This is far more than just "disapproval" or "criticism". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC) –
Commentary about alleged bias in selection/usage of this article-section's sourcing -- Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Applebaum's essay uses the word "woke" a total of three times, and none of them clearly describe what she's talking about. Applebaum clearly objects to "modern mob justice" but it is not at all clear that Applebaum wishes to paint with such a broad brush as to describe "woke" in this manner. In fact, she goes out of her way to create a nuanced picture - you will often find not an obvious argument between “woke” and “anti-woke” perspectives but rather incidents that are interpreted, described, or remembered by different people in different ways, even leaving aside whatever political or intellectual issue might be at stake- and that's two of the three total uses of "woke" in the entire piece. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
|
In summary, the bottom line is: Since the preponderance of sourcing associates illiberal woke mobocracry (substitute positive-spin terminology for the phenomenon, if desired) not at all with the center and even with the center-left but only with more extremes of the left, yet our article section-in-question tends to elide this, the false impression is created that criticism of this illiberal phenomenon is a feature principally of the right.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Summarizing the preponderance of reliable sources is exactly how we achieve WP:NPOV. Wikipedia users' own opinions and beliefs about
illiberal woke mobocracry
are irrelevant. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)- Thank you for agreeing. Thus, in that the preponderance of sourcing associates illiberal woke mobocracry with more extremes of the left, the section should be edited to reflect this (inasmuch as, at present, the section reads as thoughcriticism of woke is only of the right)!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Feel free to present
secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint
, which you helpfully pointed out earlier as being essential to achieving balance. I hope I don't need to reiterate that commentary and blogs by culture warriors like McWhorter (vis-a-vis politics, not language), Sullivan, Weiss, James Lindsay, et al., are notdisinterested
on this topic. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)- It seems you may be blinded by your own belief system. Sullivan's/Weiss's/Lindsay's/McWhorter's position is not in the fringe of liberalism but in its mainstream. Thought experiment. Can you show me one -- I'm not asking for two, not for a raft of them -- just one, single, solitary source that says woke outrage/twitter shaming et al is of the political "middle"? just one? If not, can you agree, definitionally, that something that exists never in the political middle but only on the left extreme is an< takes a beat >"extreme" position -- a fringe one?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Sullivan's/Weiss's/Lindsay's/McWhorter's position is not in the fringe of liberalism but in its mainstream.
Then it should be easy to cite a mainstream, secondary or tertiary source saying so. An essay or blog post where an author states their views is by definition a primary source for those views. My personal beliefs aboutwoke outrage/twitter shaming
are beside the point, as are everyone else's who hasn't been cited in a published, reliable source. Online shaming has its own article, and is not relevant to this one. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC) edited 21:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- It seems you may be blinded by your own belief system. Sullivan's/Weiss's/Lindsay's/McWhorter's position is not in the fringe of liberalism but in its mainstream. Thought experiment. Can you show me one -- I'm not asking for two, not for a raft of them -- just one, single, solitary source that says woke outrage/twitter shaming et al is of the political "middle"? just one? If not, can you agree, definitionally, that something that exists never in the political middle but only on the left extreme is an< takes a beat >"extreme" position -- a fringe one?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Feel free to present
- Thank you for agreeing. Thus, in that the preponderance of sourcing associates illiberal woke mobocracry with more extremes of the left, the section should be edited to reflect this (inasmuch as, at present, the section reads as thoughcriticism of woke is only of the right)!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
A new "hays code"?
Mostly off-topic speculation & quotes by random writers of opinion essays, blogs, etc. – not useful. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Suggested edits
How about, in the article's criticism/analyses section, some paraphrase -- along with what explanatory elaboration would be needed -- of (Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan[40]), "[The Atlantic's ]Anne Applebaum links the woke phenomenon to previous moral panics and mob persecutions"?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sullivan's self-published Substack newsletter is not reliable for anything but his own opinions. His interpretation of Applebaum's essay is WP:UNDUE and off-base, considering that Applebaum hardly uses the term "woke", and doesn't even say what she means by it. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I never suggested referencing, per se, this piece by Sullivan.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
What does woke phenomenon mean
- Applebaum:
In America, of course, we don’t have that kind of state coercion[ (applebaum had been referencing Turkish journalists' self-censorship under Erdoğanizm) ]. There are currently no laws that shape what academics or journalists can say; there is no government censor, no ruling-party censor. But fear of the internet mob, the office mob, or the peer-group mob is producing some similar outcomes. How many American manuscripts now remain in desk drawers—or unwritten altogether—because their authors fear a similarly arbitrary judgment? .. This censoriousness is related not just to recent, and often positive, changes in attitudes toward race and gender, and to accompanying changes in the language used to discuss them, but to other social changes that are more rarely acknowledged.
- Or (to go slightly lower brow) put "woke mob" in quotation marks into google, even, delimit clicking to quite prestigious of news sites and find people directly/indirectly quoted about what Applebaum's piece laments.
- But (for one higher-brow paraphrase of the gist of what woke ideology entails), the piece "The Illiberal Left. How Did American 'Wokeness' Jump from Elite Schools to Everyday Life? And How Deep Will Its Influence Be?" in the 24sep2021londoneconomist offers:
norms of free speech, individualism and universalism which pretend to be progressive are really camouflage for this discrimination; and that injustice will persist until systems of language and privilege are dismantled"
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)I never suggested referencing, per se, this piece by Sullivan
– then what was the point of quoting it here? Where does Applebaum sayfear of the internet mob, the office mob, or the peer-group mob
is related to "woke(ness)"?... find people directly/indirectly quoted about what Applebaum's piece laments
– what does that have to do with "woke(ness)"? Please refer again to WP:SYNTH before responding. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)- There's no need to refer to wp:Synth because I will reference Applebaum's own assertions, as credited to her, instead of inserting my own. Assuming the further iterations of this "50"-questions approach is also in good faith and not some end (although fun) in itself, I'll go ahead and answer that I
quoted
the briton-&-now-yanqui Mr Sullivan with "hat tip" -- hoping to communicate by this webspeak my giving Talkpage-credit to materials/sourcings of Andrew's I'd "mined." (I'll look up the term. Wikipedia: "act of .. doffing one's hat as a cultural expression of recognition, respect, gratitude or simple salutation and acknowledgement between two persons." Merriam-Webster: "at home on Twitter, where it's used to tell the people your followers that something you're tweeting about was brought to your attention by someone else." Macmillon: "something that you say, especially when writing on the Internet, to show that you are grateful to someone for giving you information.") - If there's no substantive objections to be raised, I'll go ahead and reference Applebaum's coverage of woke movement in the article. Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Applebaum's essay contains no
coverage
of anywoke movement
. That is pure WP:OR. See additional comments below. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Applebaum's essay contains no
- There's no need to refer to wp:Synth because I will reference Applebaum's own assertions, as credited to her, instead of inserting my own. Assuming the further iterations of this "50"-questions approach is also in good faith and not some end (although fun) in itself, I'll go ahead and answer that I
... for one higher-brow paraphrase of the gist of what woke ideology entails
– scholars and activists generally don't describe their own position(s) as "woke ideology" or claim to be part of a "Great Awokening", as The Economist phrases it, suggesting that these terms are not used neutrally, but as deliberate insults. That much is clear from the sources we already have. How exactly do you suggest we cite The Economist here? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)How exactly do you suggest we cite The Economist here?
I'm stunned about the sensitivity to insult here. Being able to use the term "Woke" both admiringly and not-admiringly is ESSENTIAL, both at large and within Wikipedia. It's established that the grassroots movement within Western intelligentsia that supports a pendulum swing away from encouraging hearers how to think toward encouraging them what to think has become labeled by both its adherents and critics "Woke." And, whereas some think the illiberal movement's altruistic motives renders it, overall, wholesome; others, don't. Among the number of observers who find themselves in this latter camp is the London Economist (which more-so "centrist" of news source hasn't any bylines and what it publishes is simply in the voice of the Economist).- Indeed: That the movement spoken of has become notable, it obviously merits coverage in Wikipedia; and, for sourcing in this regard, it behooves tertiary editors to look to the most unbiased sourcing available. Thus, looking, say, at Ad Fontes Media's nifty news orgs' aggregate bias-&-reliability chart[41], we find that adfontes plots, for example, thehill ever-so-slightly left of smack-dab center; then, just a wee-bit left of thehill, it plots the lot apnews, CNBC, reuters, bloomberg, and the economist, with most of the rest of what's often referred to as the MSM running to various degrees to the leftward of these mentioned. So it is patently obvious that we will obtain more neutral and objective coverage by grounding this same in sources that are the least infected by the illiberal, grassroots phenomenon referred to, RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The Economist informs us, about the phenomenon about which we hope to give coverage, "political scientists such as Zachary Goldberg call[ it ]the Great Awokening."(*) We could paraphrase or quote that in our article.
-------
(*)(Note: After a supplementary examination, we find that Goldberg has provided his professional coverage in Tablet of "How the Media Led the Great Racial Awakening," with this article's dek's reading, "Years before Trump’s election the media dramatically increased coverage of racism and embraced new theories of racial consciousness that set the stage for the latest unrest"[42]. Goldberg's examination, here, of grass-roots' advocacy among journalists need not be referenced in our article (certainly as, itself, primary sourcing for it); but IMHO the fact of the Economist's finding Goldberg's terminology "the Great Awokening" notable is something of inherent interest/importance for readers toward their understand what observers say about this phenomenon we're covering.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)- Ad Fontes Media is a self-published source given little to no credence here, as its conclusions are, at best, little more than unsupportable opinion and, at worst, ludicrous nonsense. No one who regularly reads The Hill would describe it as "left of center" in any possible way.
- Your demand that we discredit reliable sources for no other reason than your unsourced, unsupported, opinionated declaration that they are
infected by the illiberal, grassroots phenomenon referred to
is, quite simply, contrary to Wikipedia policy and will be summarily ignored. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- You inquire (I paraphrase) what ideology Anne refers to, about things transpiring in the wake of the recently-arrived ____blank_____ movement (Sincerely: What name's your preference?), wherein, per Anne
Right here in America, right now, it is possible to meet people who have lost everything—jobs, money, friends, colleagues—after violating no laws, and sometimes no workplace rules either. Instead, they have broken (or are accused of having broken) social codes having to do with race, sex, personal behavior, or even acceptable humor, which may not have existed five years ago or maybe five months ago.
Let's see. In her set-up to this, Anne refers to "woke" ideology -- as well as to its "anti-woke" counterpart. Perhaps even sometimes what she's referring to this type of mob action transpiring in anti-woke circumstances(?). An important nuance -- and, indeed, Anne professes, here[43], {{"the process of radicalization[ can be ]mutually reinforcing"}}. (It seems she argues against both from the middle.) Yet, in taking on the one side -- in her obvious reference to woke social-justice activism -- she expresses her belief that {{"Dangerous intellectual fashions are sweeping through some American universities—the humanities departments .. to restrict what others can teach, think, and say. Left-wing Twitter mobs do attack people who have deviated from their party line, trying not just to silence them but to get them fired. .. 'an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty'}} (which is not to say -- after the most cursory glance at her oeuvre -- that she portrays in rosy hue any il-liberal reactions to woke ideology among those on the other side of the political spectrum, either). - You wrote:
scholars .. generally don't describe their own position(s) as 'woke ideology'
. Some scholars obviously (if, perhaps unfortunately!) do ascribe to this ideology, however. (The Economist[44],"woke .. is now pilloried on both the right and the left. .. It was redefined to mean following an intolerant and moralising ideology."
) --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC) - My offered "diff" -
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)“In 2021, The Atlantic's Anne Applebaum laments an atmosphere within the clash between the woke- versus anti-woke movements wherein she argues that individuals, in fear a "modern mob justice" at the hands of such activists, feel pressured toward social-and-thought conformity, which parallels, she believes, similar atmospheres historically in Eastern Europe during its Sovietization as well as the one in present-day Turkey. "Social codes are changing, in many ways for the better. But for those whose behavior doesn’t adapt fast enough to the new norms, judgment can be swift — and merciless."https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/10/new-puritans-mob-justice-canceled/619818/”
- This has nothing to do with the topic of this article, which is the term "woke", its history, usage, and cultural impact, not any given "ideology". Your own source (Applebaum) contradicts your proposed text:
you will often find not an obvious argument between “woke” and “anti-woke” perspectives but rather incidents that are interpreted, described, or remembered by different people in different ways
. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)- Sure. This 'Wikipedia as Wiktionary-lite' ploy works great. If one's goal is use of Wikipedia as yet another venue for the ideology represented by the term-in-question's promotion.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- The
ploy
, as you call it, is to summarize points of view according to their prominence in reliable sources. Two users now have explained that Applebaum's essay doesn't say what you think it says. Please explain why you think they are wrong. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)- Hmm. So since some crew think some /X/ is important so assert /Y/ and so my observation /Z/ must be thrown out? Of course, you are free to believe what but I won't be thus gaslighted. Although asking why somebody else believes or says /W/ is a famous question to ask someone being interrogated, my answer remains: All the people who've read Applebaum's essay and whose commentary on it have agreed with my reading and thus remain secure in my-and-our composite ability to comprehend her gist in it. But, in response to your question as to why your cited individuals can't see this obvious reality, for you to ascertain to what degree this situation might be ascribed to cynicism or to some yet other cause, is a topic on which it's not for me to speak; and, you'll have to find some other way to ascertain that, for yourself.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
So since some crew think some /X/ is important so assert /Y/ and so my observation /Z/ must be thrown out?
NorthBySouthBaranof and I have pointed out that Applebaum says it's not just a conflict between "woke" and "anti-woke". Your inference, stated in Wikipedia' voice, that Applebaum really meant the opposite of that breaches our No original research policy.All the people who've read Applebaum's essay and whose commentary on it have agreed with my reading and thus remain secure in my-and-our composite ability to comprehend her gist in it.
Good for them. Unless they published their reading in a reliable source, we can't use it. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm. So since some crew think some /X/ is important so assert /Y/ and so my observation /Z/ must be thrown out? Of course, you are free to believe what but I won't be thus gaslighted. Although asking why somebody else believes or says /W/ is a famous question to ask someone being interrogated, my answer remains: All the people who've read Applebaum's essay and whose commentary on it have agreed with my reading and thus remain secure in my-and-our composite ability to comprehend her gist in it. But, in response to your question as to why your cited individuals can't see this obvious reality, for you to ascertain to what degree this situation might be ascribed to cynicism or to some yet other cause, is a topic on which it's not for me to speak; and, you'll have to find some other way to ascertain that, for yourself.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- The
- Sure. This 'Wikipedia as Wiktionary-lite' ploy works great. If one's goal is use of Wikipedia as yet another venue for the ideology represented by the term-in-question's promotion.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- I said describe, not ascribe. No one calls their own beliefs "woke ideology". That term is a partisan insult flagging the source as opinion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Let me go on the record that "Because-Applembaum-finds-nuances-within-the-woke-debate-we,-therefore,-can't-use-her-analysis" makes zero sense. (Btw, we can learn much from Applebaum's interesting 2020 tweet disagreeing with how[ her fellow center-right ]London Times uses, in a piece about Orbán, the word woke. It appears that her definition of the term is as "an import from American culture war[ .. as mis-]deployed to make it seem like this internal EU argument over the rule of law has something to do with a hot debate in the English-speaking world." Translation: A "hot" debate is going on in the English-speaking world she shorthands with woke -- the pivot of which["woke" debate ]being different than that of the EU's "rule-of-law" concerns.) //
Viktor Orbán (published this morning)[45]: "In America, after a liberal hegemony removing conservatives and their thoughts from the equation, Neo-Marxism – referred to as 'woke' over there – is taking control of the institutions that shape thought and public thinking. .. I'm convinced that our current debates with the West — for the sake of simplicity, let’s call it Brussels — the disputes between Brussels and Hungary stem from that very difference."
- One gambit is, I'm asked "Twenty Questions" about philosophical issues, then, taking the bait, my Talkpage is one templated about discussion unmoored to edits. Fun as this discussion is: I can point out that it's yesterday's NewYorker that includes the line[46]
".. Orbán had described how Hungarians, during the Soviet era, had been exposed to a programmatic left-wing effort to create Homo sovieticus, the new Soviet man, and so recognized woke progressive ideology as a totalitarian ideology itself."
Yet: You argue (and an entire section of our article remains that is based on the tautology) that because[ due only, of course, to woke's well-established semantic shift ]it's such critics such as Orbán of Hungarian-LGBTQ+-rights-proponents labeling them "woke," and this not-so-much self-labeling, therefore the raft of headlines[47] utilizing a shorthand about such-as-Hungary's war on woke are discountable, for our article's purposes! But the shibboleth is too extreme. How folks self-identify is but one important factor among many. (Eg although there might be a separate article one day on the self-identifying linguistic term "La Costa Nostra," at present, it re-directs to the more general article American Mafia -- the more-so outsider term, as used in most analysis and criticism. (Ditto "Pro-life" --> Anti-abortion movements.)) - For a couple cites re orban's argument "neomarxism = woke," see diff.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't believe anyone has said
"Because-[Applebaum]-finds-nuances-within-the-woke-debate-we,-therefore,-can't-use-her-analysis"
. What "woke debate" would that be, exactly?We can learn much from Applebaum's interesting 2020 tweet
– Twitter is largely not usable as a source. Regardless, her equating "woke" with "a hot debate" seems to work against the idea that she is assigning the term to a particular side in the culture war. This article is not aboutwoke progressive ideology
, whatever that means. I certainly never meant to imply that discussion onphilosophical issues
was wanted. I believe I have tried to steer the conversation away from such use of the talk page as a forum. My apologies for any misunderstanding. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)- Your open-ended question What's the hot debate about woke referred to by Applebaum invites analysis of -- to what hot debate about woke Applebaum refers. Which might lead to her twitter stream. Then< yawns >you boilerplate Re use of Twitter in... mainspace! Rinse and repeat. In contrast, your predecessor-in-inquiring-conversation Socrates (Father of[ Western ]Thought who conversed but authored nary a word) asked specifically-crafted-and-binary questions chosen with the intent to gain agreement on a foundational point, to proceed from there. As for the generalized question, though, I gave above my précis of Anne's position with regard to this hot debate.
“In 2021, The Atlantic's Anne Applebaum laments an atmosphere within the clash between the woke- versus anti-woke movements wherein she argues that individuals, in fear a "modern mob justice" at the hands of such activists, feel pressured toward social-and-thought conformity, which parallels, she believes, similar atmospheres historically in Eastern Europe during its Sovietization as well as the one in present-day Turkey. "Social codes are changing, in many ways for the better. But for those whose behavior doesn’t adapt fast enough to the new norms, judgment can be swift — and merciless."https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/10/new-puritans-mob-justice-canceled/619818/”
- Sangdeboeuf: >>>>>
her equating "woke" with "a hot debate" seems to work against the idea that she is assigning the term to a particular side in the culture war.
<<<<< - Kudos for your reading comprehension of this précis. As you correctly see within it, Anne's analysis does not assign the term to a particular side in the culture war. Thank you.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- In that case the phrase
woke- versus anti-woke movements
makes zero sense. Where does Applebaum refer to any "woke" movement? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)- Okay!; see diff. Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- To repeat, where does Applebaum describe any "clash between the woke- versus anti-woke perspectives"? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Replacing the word "movements" with "perspectives" does not address the main problem with this citation, earlier explained by NorthBySouthBaranof (besides undue weight, which is also a problem):
Applebaum's essay uses the word "woke" a total of three times, and none of them clearly describe what she's talking about. Applebaum clearly objects to "modern mob justice" but it is not at all clear that Applebaum wishes to paint with such a broad brush as to describe "woke" in this manner.
--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)- (1) Recasting a question ain't a "repetition" except if and only if both essentially say the same thing (which they, of course, didn't). (2) Per my reading of Anne's piece ("The New Puritans: Social codes are changing, in many ways for the better. But for those whose behavior doesn't adapt fast enough to the new norms, judgment can be swift—and merciless") she alludes in title and dek to diametrically-opposed perspectives. Which, in the article's text itself (I suppose for the benefit of living in a cave away from mass media for a decade), she specifies these same with their by now usual codification as a debate of "woke" vs. its "anti-" (via her words):
"dig into the story of anyone who has been a genuine victim of modern mob justice and you will often find not an obvious argument between 'woke' and 'anti-woke' perspectives but rather incidents that are interpreted, described, or remembered by different people in different ways, even leaving aside whatever political or intellectual issue might be at stake"
.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[Y]ou will often find not an obvious argument between 'woke' and 'anti-woke' perspectives ...
Please explain what you think the word "not" means in that sentence, because we seem to think it means different things. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)- Sure. An item doesn't have to equate to Aristotlean "A." (affirmo) / "E." (nego) statements wherein "S." (subject) "always"/"never" P. (predicate) for it to be useful on Wikipedia. From her context (via its preceding pair of sentences "
despite the disputed nature of these cases, it has become both easy and useful for some people to put them into larger narratives
" - & - "Partisans, especially on the right, now toss around the phrase cancel culture when they want to defend themselves from criticism, however legitimate
"), what Anne's is saying here seems pretty straightforward, IMHO. Which is that individual disputes Re behavior/speech Anne will be referring to won't neatly fold into the larger narrative of 'woke'-v.-'its-"anti-."' Which likewise implies that this larger, overarching debate nonetheless is being played out in part within these very disputes. Viz, types "I." / "O." that are of the nature, Some S. are/are not P. Thus: the usefulness to which Anne refers via "it has become .. useful for some people to put them into larger narratives
."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sure. An item doesn't have to equate to Aristotlean "A." (affirmo) / "E." (nego) statements wherein "S." (subject) "always"/"never" P. (predicate) for it to be useful on Wikipedia. From her context (via its preceding pair of sentences "
- (1) Recasting a question ain't a "repetition" except if and only if both essentially say the same thing (which they, of course, didn't). (2) Per my reading of Anne's piece ("The New Puritans: Social codes are changing, in many ways for the better. But for those whose behavior doesn't adapt fast enough to the new norms, judgment can be swift—and merciless") she alludes in title and dek to diametrically-opposed perspectives. Which, in the article's text itself (I suppose for the benefit of living in a cave away from mass media for a decade), she specifies these same with their by now usual codification as a debate of "woke" vs. its "anti-" (via her words):
- Okay!; see diff. Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- In that case the phrase
- Your open-ended question What's the hot debate about woke referred to by Applebaum invites analysis of -- to what hot debate about woke Applebaum refers. Which might lead to her twitter stream. Then< yawns >you boilerplate Re use of Twitter in... mainspace! Rinse and repeat. In contrast, your predecessor-in-inquiring-conversation Socrates (Father of[ Western ]Thought who conversed but authored nary a word) asked specifically-crafted-and-binary questions chosen with the intent to gain agreement on a foundational point, to proceed from there. As for the generalized question, though, I gave above my précis of Anne's position with regard to this hot debate.
- I don't believe anyone has said
- Let me go on the record that "Because-Applembaum-finds-nuances-within-the-woke-debate-we,-therefore,-can't-use-her-analysis" makes zero sense. (Btw, we can learn much from Applebaum's interesting 2020 tweet disagreeing with how[ her fellow center-right ]London Times uses, in a piece about Orbán, the word woke. It appears that her definition of the term is as "an import from American culture war[ .. as mis-]deployed to make it seem like this internal EU argument over the rule of law has something to do with a hot debate in the English-speaking world." Translation: A "hot" debate is going on in the English-speaking world she shorthands with woke -- the pivot of which["woke" debate ]being different than that of the EU's "rule-of-law" concerns.) //
- This has nothing to do with the topic of this article, which is the term "woke", its history, usage, and cultural impact, not any given "ideology". Your own source (Applebaum) contradicts your proposed text: