Sangdeboeuf (talk | contribs) →Suggested edit: Replying to Hodgdon's secret garden (using reply-link) |
Hodgdon's secret garden (talk | contribs) →"Pejorative" section title: reply |
||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
::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 <u>right</u>)!--[[User:Hodgdon's secret garden|Hodgdon's secret garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgdon's secret garden|talk]]) 22:03, 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 <u>right</u>)!--[[User:Hodgdon's secret garden|Hodgdon's secret garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgdon's secret garden|talk]]) 22:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::Feel free to present {{tq|secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint}}, which you helpfully pointed out earlier as being essential to [[WP:BALANCE|achieving balance]]. I hope I don't need to reiterate that commentary and blogs by [[culture war]]riors like McWhorter (vis-a-vis politics, not language), Sullivan, Weiss, James Lindsay, et al., are not {{tq|disinterested}} on this topic. --[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 22:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
:::Feel free to present {{tq|secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint}}, which you helpfully pointed out earlier as being essential to [[WP:BALANCE|achieving balance]]. I hope I don't need to reiterate that commentary and blogs by [[culture war]]riors like McWhorter (vis-a-vis politics, not language), Sullivan, Weiss, James Lindsay, et al., are not {{tq|disinterested}} on this topic. --[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:Hodgdon's secret garden|Hodgdon's secret garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgdon's secret garden|talk]]) 23:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== A new "[[hays code]]"? == |
== A new "[[hays code]]"? == |
Revision as of 23:16, 13 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)
- 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 edit
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)
- 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)
- 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: