User2083146168 (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
M2sh22pp1l (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 310: | Line 310: | ||
::It's an opinions piece by someone with no particular expertise on the subject. His article can be used as sources - but his opinion is...opinion. [[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]] ([[User talk:Bacondrum|talk]]) 00:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
::It's an opinions piece by someone with no particular expertise on the subject. His article can be used as sources - but his opinion is...opinion. [[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]] ([[User talk:Bacondrum|talk]]) 00:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
: From the academic Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2019.1673600 <blockquote>[...] today’s campus call-out culture makes it yet harder for students to hold—or even just consider—unorthodox ideas for '''fear''' of being shamed on social media</blockquote> [[User:Sridc|<font color="#0066cc">—'''''Srid'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sridc|<font color="#6600cc">'''''YO'''''</font>]]</sup> 01:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
::: From the academic Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2019.1673600 <blockquote>[...] today’s campus call-out culture makes it yet harder for students to hold—or even just consider—unorthodox ideas for '''fear''' of being shamed on social media</blockquote> [[User:Sridc|<font color="#0066cc">—'''''Srid'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sridc|<font color="#6600cc">'''''YO'''''</font>]]</sup> 01:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
== #MeToo == |
== #MeToo == |
Revision as of 01:05, 10 November 2019
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple 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): Clarebrady (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Btorszag (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Veeyva. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 May 2019 and 12 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AGONZAGA25 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Swetzel14.
Haidt's book
To the user who undid my change: this book is *relevant*. There are numerous references to 'call-out culture' in Haidt's book: https://books.google.ca/books?id=9-o6DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+coddling+of+the+american+mind&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo7q3LwvbkAhXIc98KHccNCYEQ6AEIKjAA#v=snippet&q=call-out&f=false - Sridc (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's cruft and unnecessary here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- What? "cruft and unnecessary" in what way? Which wikipedia rule has been broken? There are numerous references to 'call-out culture' in Haidt's book. This is reason enough to add it to the 'See also' section. It is in fact the central thesis of the book. Here's the author directly talking about it in relation to the book: https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018674210/jonathan-haidt-call-out-culture-and-the-new-prestige-economy ... if you are going to keep saying "_relevance is unclear_" you better support that increasingly meaningless claim.
- Wikipedia is not a random assortment of material, and this seems, honestly, like an attempt to provide promo coverage for one book. I'm removing it, and would suggest you should disclose any CoI you have. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- First, it was "cruft and unnecessary" and now it is "a random assortment of material" and "promo coverage for one book". In way exactly is the inclusion "cruft and unnecessary"? In what way exactly is the addition "a random assortment of material"? I'm neither promoting the book or not receiving any funds from it (just an interested reader). Moreover, why are you evading addressing the core reason for inclusion--that this book is all about call-out culture, as evidenced by the numerous references to it in it (see the two links above)? Please stop carelessly reverting. - Sridc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- I am not carelessly reverting. This is a book that isn't even being used as a reference in the article text, a single book, which is getting a section all to itself? No. That's not WP:DUE because it's WP:CRUFT - which is a random assortment of material with no significance to a general audience. The vehemence with which the IP has reinserted this material makes me suspect that they want to use this page for WP:PROMO and have an undisclosed WP:COI. As a result, if this one book is continuously reinserted with no justification for WP:DUE I will be reporting it to WP:COI/N for investigation. I hope this is clear. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- First, it was "cruft and unnecessary" and now it is "a random assortment of material" and "promo coverage for one book". In way exactly is the inclusion "cruft and unnecessary"? In what way exactly is the addition "a random assortment of material"? I'm neither promoting the book or not receiving any funds from it (just an interested reader). Moreover, why are you evading addressing the core reason for inclusion--that this book is all about call-out culture, as evidenced by the numerous references to it in it (see the two links above)? Please stop carelessly reverting. - Sridc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a random assortment of material, and this seems, honestly, like an attempt to provide promo coverage for one book. I'm removing it, and would suggest you should disclose any CoI you have. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- There's way too many books arguing back-and-forth about this sort of topic to include all of them, and no particular reason to shine a spotlight on this one in particular. I agree that it's WP:UNDUE. If we included every single such hatchet-grinding culture-war piece on a topic like this, the See Also section would be a mile long. --Aquillion (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- What? "cruft and unnecessary" in what way? Which wikipedia rule has been broken? There are numerous references to 'call-out culture' in Haidt's book. This is reason enough to add it to the 'See also' section. It is in fact the central thesis of the book. Here's the author directly talking about it in relation to the book: https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018674210/jonathan-haidt-call-out-culture-and-the-new-prestige-economy ... if you are going to keep saying "_relevance is unclear_" you better support that increasingly meaningless claim.
- Comment: The book is published by Penguin Books, it has garnered a substantial number of reviews, the authors Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff are well known, and the book contains specific description and discussion of call-out culture on pages 71–73. So the book can and should be used to support specific text within this article, which is short and pretty weak. Haidt and Lukianoff's opinions would also be notable given their contribution to the debate on call-out culture, but for this reason included text should be attributed.
- I strongly disagree with everyone commenting above, either arguing that the reference should be added without specific text (which would be terribly lazy), or that the book is undue and "cruft." A book by reputable academic authors and a strong publisher on this general topic and with a specific description of the article topic is the opposite of cruft and using the term here renders it meaningless. Also, note that without specific evidence of a WP:COI, raising the allegation of a COI constitutes a personal attack: there are probably millions of people interested in this topic in the US alone, and IP / new user interest hardly suffices to demonstrate a COI. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Darouet: So feel free to use it as a reference. --MarioGom (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- I will note I have not argued against the use of the book as a reference so long as the usage is WP:DUE. Only that it should not be given an independent section, with no mention of what secondary sources have said regarding it, when it is not currently being used as a reference within the article. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. There is no point in a indiscriminate books section here. Specially when there seems to be only 3 relevant pages. Referencing might still be valid. --MarioGom (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds fine by me actually--to use it as a reference, while quoting the book even. And I appreciate the input from multiple parties. - Sridc (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Okay I have now added a reference to the book pulling in the relevant quote. Let me know your feedback. - Sridc (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Fix the ref so it doesn't point to the wikipedia article but rather the book the article is about please. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- How do I do that exactly? (EDIT: okay, I edited it out) - Sridc (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's better. Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- The source is good, but the content that's been added is undue, it's cruft. Bacondrum (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- The content was added as a result of the dispute resolution conversation above. Instead of simply reverting it and vanishing without engaging others, I suggest discussing it with the users here first. Otherwise, we will have to open a case on whatever wikipedia page is for dispute resolution, which seems unnecessary to me - as such a case was already opened, leading to the very discussion you are reading above. Hit Ctrl+F and search for "undue" and "cruft"; this was already discussed here. - Sridc (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sridc NO, that's not how wikipedia works - you are edit warring. I've restored the status quo. You were bold and your edits have been challenged, you now need to work towards consensus. I for one am opposed to your additions they are completely WP:UNDUE, IMO. You have been challenged and there is no consensus to reinstate your edits. Do not reinstate your edits without consensus as per WP:3RR and WP:STATUSQUO. No hard feeling, myself and others simply disagree. Bacondrum (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Um, I just read the above discussion and the consensus is against including your recent edits. This is an encyclopedic entry regarding a neologism, not a culture war debate listing every single viewpoint on the matter, from ex-presidents utterly irrelevant opinions on on the term to randomly selected books that mention the subject. Bacondrum (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, there has been consensus. See the comment by Darouet where he disagrees with the "undue" characterisation. My edits were approved, but you revert is not. Please engage with others (Darouet, et. al) before reverting again. Thank you. - Sridc (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- In fact, 3 people above support the change. You are the only one that disapproves. The numbers are in favour of including the change. If you disagree, you should argue in the talk page instead of blindly reverting it. - Sridc (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- By the way, I suspect you have a political conflict of interest (especially given that you have removed a big chuck of book summary in The Coddling of the American Mind) and therefore have a vested interest in censoring a balanced point of view on this topic. It might be better to involve other parties, after all. - Sridc (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Also, would you care to explain why would you remove Jonathan Haidt but not Michael Bérubé and Lisa Nakamura? All 3 have written about the topic -- Haidt much more than others -- and yet you want to remove him? - Sridc (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- The content was added as a result of the dispute resolution conversation above. Instead of simply reverting it and vanishing without engaging others, I suggest discussing it with the users here first. Otherwise, we will have to open a case on whatever wikipedia page is for dispute resolution, which seems unnecessary to me - as such a case was already opened, leading to the very discussion you are reading above. Hit Ctrl+F and search for "undue" and "cruft"; this was already discussed here. - Sridc (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- The source is good, but the content that's been added is undue, it's cruft. Bacondrum (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's better. Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- How do I do that exactly? (EDIT: okay, I edited it out) - Sridc (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Fix the ref so it doesn't point to the wikipedia article but rather the book the article is about please. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Okay I have now added a reference to the book pulling in the relevant quote. Let me know your feedback. - Sridc (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds fine by me actually--to use it as a reference, while quoting the book even. And I appreciate the input from multiple parties. - Sridc (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. There is no point in a indiscriminate books section here. Specially when there seems to be only 3 relevant pages. Referencing might still be valid. --MarioGom (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- I will note I have not argued against the use of the book as a reference so long as the usage is WP:DUE. Only that it should not be given an independent section, with no mention of what secondary sources have said regarding it, when it is not currently being used as a reference within the article. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd actually suggest that you please don't take disputes over content reversion to WP:AN/I unless it's clear that there's a behavioral roadblock to progress. AN/I does not settle content disputes. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Simonm223, in fact that is what I meant to suggest and should have made that distinction. I think there is often a behavioral roadblock to progress on this article. DeRossitt (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sridc You don't have consensus to reinstate Obama's opinion, you got consensus that the book can be used as a reference. I've argued for the removal of Michael Bérubé and Lisa Nakamura's opinions in the past. I have no conflict of interest - don't accuse others of acting in bad faith. Bacondrum (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- I note that this source has now been added to the lead, which is both grossly WP:UNDUE and completely unacceptable without in-line citations given Haidt's fairly strident bias on the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Why hasn't this been moved back over to cancel culture?
I don't understand. I see that it was proposed the two articles be merged, however in the months after the merge this article has only dramatically decreased in size. I suppose this may be related to the merge in some way. As this very talk page points out, cancel culture is the most commonly used term. Call-out culture should be the redirect, no? TurretBot (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is the problem with neologisms. Probably WP:TOOSOON for an article, if this warrants an article at all (I'd probably err on it not warranting an article at this point). Is it cancel culture or call-out culture? Is it more than a 5 second neologism that passed it's used by date 2 seconds in? or is it a social media fart not worthy of mention? Or a "hot word" for half-rate journo's that was relevant for all of half a millisecond? What ever it is there needs to be more than a few reliable sources - even more so the subject/content needs to be due. Bacondrum (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- "however in the months after the merge this article has only dramatically decreased in size." -- Hmm, really? Do you have a link to the old page that was larger in size before the merge? - Sridc (talk) 01:30 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Call-out_culture&oldid=896196916 - Sridc (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Better link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cancel_culture&diff=895110207&oldid=894426523 - Sridc (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- "however in the months after the merge this article has only dramatically decreased in size." -- Hmm, really? Do you have a link to the old page that was larger in size before the merge? - Sridc (talk) 01:30 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Obama's view
@Simonm223 - Your reasons for removing Obama's view makes no sense to me. Obama is not a specialist in racism either, and yet Racism includes his observations ("dog whistle racism"). What is the precise objection exactly? I disagree that Obama's disapproval is a trivia; when he spoke out several media outlets (all reliable sources) talked about it, in reference to call-out culture. This article is already rather short, so removing this makes little sense. - Sridc (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Call-out culture is not just about racism, and I don't see Obama's view as being useful beyond being just another old rich man shouting at clouds. He's WP:UNDUE - believe it or not most non-Americans don't give a whittle for the opinions of former US presidents about culture. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Criticism section
Is this section worth including in the page? If so, I can rearrange stuff a bit. - Sridc (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- No. Generally criticism sections are frowned upon within Wikipedeia. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Opening paragraph
I'm not satisfied with the opening paragraph. According to who is call-out culture "a form of public shaming that aims to hold individuals and groups accountable for their actions"? I checked the reference[1] which talkes about 'cancel culture' - but it makes no mention of 'holding individuals and groups accountable' (in fact, there is not even a mention of words "accountable" or "accountability") - so I'm inclined to rephrase that part. - Sridc (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- I would suggest it would be very wise to propose revisions to the lede at talk first and build a consensus before revising. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Here's what I propose. Given that "cancel culture" and "call-out culture" refer to the same thing (no media outlets make any distinction between two), and that the current source, thenextweb, in the opening paragraph makes no mention of accountability, let's remove the paragraph entirely and thereby promote the next paragraph (which I just edited, citing better sources) to be the opening paragraph. That second paragraph is a better synopsis anyway. - Sridc (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's an improvement, thanks. We can leave out the loaded language like "a violation of today's social justice norms" and "thrust out of social or professional circles". The cited source is borderline as it is an opinions piece - I just found an op ed from New Republic that claims cancel culture is made up and they make a convincing argument stating that: "“cancel culture” seems to be the name mediocrities and legends on their way to mediocrity have given their own waning relevance." We are not here to push a partisan view of the thing, you can't blame it on "social justice warriors" here, we should use more cautious language. People of all political persuasions have called for sackings over offensive comments. Removed as per WP:BATTLEGROUND. And moved citation to end of sentence. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- The cited source, NYTimes, is a reliable source. The verbatim quote referenced is not an opinion, rather a description (by a reliable source) of what 'cancel culture' is. Re: "a violation of today's social justice norms" - this is not an opinion; most instances of 'canceling' are done in violation of one social justice norm or the other (typically accusations of sexism or racism). Re: ""thrust out of social or professional circles"" - once again not an opinion; it is a report of what 'canceling' entails, as can be verified in each individual case. In regards to the newrepublic I don't see it being listed as a reliable source (in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for example). While I'm aware that 'canceling' is not an exclusive domain of what you dub to be 'social justice warriors' (btw, please don't accuse me of "blaming it on social justice warriors" or anything of that ilk henceforth), you are welcome to provide a reliable source that describes 'cancel culture' as dealing also with violation of other norms other than social justice. - Sridc (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- It is just an opinion, one you share, but many others do not. Other reliable sources use less bias language as should we. Really, an op ed is not good enough as a citation for such a claim. Bacondrum (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Re: your claims regarding "just an opinion" and "bias", I'll refer you to my previous comment. In regards to op ed being not good as citation, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert." (emphasis mine), and the Forbe article's editor Evan Gerstmann, a former law practitioner, is a college professor and researcher who writes about "campus free speech, same-sex equality and racial justice" including a book titled "Campus Sexual Assault". - Sridc (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- And your New Republic quote is unfit here in two ways: a) it talks about comedians (not general public). b) is more of a put-down by the author than an observation/report of 'cancel culture' as it happens. At best, it could be worth mentioning in the Description section, but certainly not in the introductory paragraph. - Sridc (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- "Writing about" something doesn't make them an expert; subject-matter expert here is meant in the WP:SPS sense, which has a much higher bar - they must be widely-recognized as an established expert in the field, not just someone with an interest in it. Otherwise, every talking head would pass WP:SPS. But even aside from that problem, it is grossly WP:UNDUE to structure the entire lead around a single opinion-piece, especially from such a minor figure, and it's completely unacceptable to present their opinion or interpretation as fact in the article voice. If what they're saying is true and not just their personal opinion, it should be easy to find a better source than this. --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- It is just an opinion, one you share, but many others do not. Other reliable sources use less bias language as should we. Really, an op ed is not good enough as a citation for such a claim. Bacondrum (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- The cited source, NYTimes, is a reliable source. The verbatim quote referenced is not an opinion, rather a description (by a reliable source) of what 'cancel culture' is. Re: "a violation of today's social justice norms" - this is not an opinion; most instances of 'canceling' are done in violation of one social justice norm or the other (typically accusations of sexism or racism). Re: ""thrust out of social or professional circles"" - once again not an opinion; it is a report of what 'canceling' entails, as can be verified in each individual case. In regards to the newrepublic I don't see it being listed as a reliable source (in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for example). While I'm aware that 'canceling' is not an exclusive domain of what you dub to be 'social justice warriors' (btw, please don't accuse me of "blaming it on social justice warriors" or anything of that ilk henceforth), you are welcome to provide a reliable source that describes 'cancel culture' as dealing also with violation of other norms other than social justice. - Sridc (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's an improvement, thanks. We can leave out the loaded language like "a violation of today's social justice norms" and "thrust out of social or professional circles". The cited source is borderline as it is an opinions piece - I just found an op ed from New Republic that claims cancel culture is made up and they make a convincing argument stating that: "“cancel culture” seems to be the name mediocrities and legends on their way to mediocrity have given their own waning relevance." We are not here to push a partisan view of the thing, you can't blame it on "social justice warriors" here, we should use more cautious language. People of all political persuasions have called for sackings over offensive comments. Removed as per WP:BATTLEGROUND. And moved citation to end of sentence. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Here's what I propose. Given that "cancel culture" and "call-out culture" refer to the same thing (no media outlets make any distinction between two), and that the current source, thenextweb, in the opening paragraph makes no mention of accountability, let's remove the paragraph entirely and thereby promote the next paragraph (which I just edited, citing better sources) to be the opening paragraph. That second paragraph is a better synopsis anyway. - Sridc (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Aquillion - about your revert - please read the discussion in this section. The text you effectively reinstated in your edit is much worse. The introductory statement uses "hold individuals and groups accountable for their actions" using a reference to thenextweb, yet there is no mention whatsoever of accountability. This reference has to go, and consequently the introductory paragraph, needs to be replaced with text that aligns with a reliable source. That's exactly what the second paragraph does. I tried my best to locate top two sources that would the most reliable source accepted here. See the discussion above. - Sridc (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- If you thought that the Gerstmann source was usable, I suggest maybe slowing down? It is clearly not usable - it probably should not be in the article at all, but we definitely cannot structure the lead around it. The first sentence of the lead is meant to summarize the article, and therefore doesn't necessarily required detailed citations - but your version made it vastly worse by introducing numerous statements cited only to, essentially, a self-published opinion piece by a non-notable author. --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have a better source, perchance? The Gerstmann source, in addition to the NYTimes piece, is what my research led me to. As I explained above, the Gerstmann source is considered to be reliable anyway. So what's the problem? Why do you think it is "clearly not usable"? I agree that the first sentence should summarize the article, but that doesn't mean describing something that no source agrees with (which is what the former "accountability" sentence did)! - Sridc (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- The sources for the first sentence seem to have been removed at some point in the past; I went through the article's history and found them. Also, as a reminder, you added the contested Gerstmann source just a few days ago - you invoked WP:BRD, but the appropriate thing in this situation is for you to recognize the objections to your proposed addition and talk them out on talk. (In fact, looking at it, you removed the sources - which do, in fact, mention call-out culture - and added the contested Gerstmann source in the same edit. eg. one of the sources you removed says
As Jyoti notes below, the internet provides a powerful technology for exposing problematic behaviour of others—“‘call out’ culture” (e.g., Ealasaid Munro 2013)—in ways that have potential to disrupt traditional power relations
; you removed it and then complained the sentence you'd stripped the citations off of didn't have a cite for that exact thing!) In any case it's clear there's no consensus for your proposed changes right now. --Aquillion (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- The sources for the first sentence seem to have been removed at some point in the past; I went through the article's history and found them. Also, as a reminder, you added the contested Gerstmann source just a few days ago - you invoked WP:BRD, but the appropriate thing in this situation is for you to recognize the objections to your proposed addition and talk them out on talk. (In fact, looking at it, you removed the sources - which do, in fact, mention call-out culture - and added the contested Gerstmann source in the same edit. eg. one of the sources you removed says
- Do you have a better source, perchance? The Gerstmann source, in addition to the NYTimes piece, is what my research led me to. As I explained above, the Gerstmann source is considered to be reliable anyway. So what's the problem? Why do you think it is "clearly not usable"? I agree that the first sentence should summarize the article, but that doesn't mean describing something that no source agrees with (which is what the former "accountability" sentence did)! - Sridc (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
References
Cancelled people coming together
NYTimes recently published an article talking about a bunch of former "cancelled" people, and their supporters. If anyone is looking for ideas to expand this wiki page, this article has some pointers: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/02/style/what-is-cancel-culture.html - Sridc (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Kind of crufty tho. The question should be not, "is this connected to the topic in some way," but rather, "is this relevant to an encyclopedia entry on the topic. And much like the opinions of retired politicians, the existence of a support group for people who had to log off twitter is hardly encyclopedically relevant just because the NYT had column inches to fill. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Most of that article, yes. But one fact -- that the "cancelled" are being counselled by a notable person -- stood out, and I think it should be included. Otherwise it would not be obvious at all. - Sridc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- By the way, your phrase "people who had to log off twitter" kind of indicates that you don't understand this topic very well. Cancelling can result in losing jobs, professional stand and even becoming homeless (all verified facts). - Sridc (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, I just came across this new piece of info from Alice's twitter https://twitter.com/AliceDreger/status/1190771089070317569?s=20 where she says that she had counselled people who were "attacked", but that she seriously doubts that she dealt with the cancelled per se. So I've removed my edit. - Sridc (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The two feminist sources
The 2nd paragraph references two feminist sources:
- "Rape culture and social media: young critics and a feminist counterpublic"
- "Feminism: A Fourth Wave?"
But I can't find any reference to a cancel culture in those links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sridc (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- I just read them and you are correct, they should go and related assertions should go too. Just be mindful of your own bias when editing please - your edits have contained POV language and you've appeared to be pushing that book. I looked at your twitter feed and it's clear that you have very strong feelings about the subject. The article must not be used to promote a certain view, a book or an ideology. It must not be a list of complaints about the subject or a list of any kind. The content must be WP:DUE and not just recent news, lists of what people think of the subject, a tit for tat of pro and anti thesis etc. We are not here to report what Obama thinks of University politics, neologisms or Harvey Wienstien nor are we here to report what David Spencer said about Milo Yiannopolous or how South Park made a joke about Call-out culture - we are not here to report anything, end of story. This is an article about a neologism - what it means, where it comes from, how it is used - in an objective manner, this is not a place to grind an axe about feminists or the alt-right or anyone else editors might want to have a rant about. The article needs to be factual, well written, balanced and focused on providing an encyclopedic description of the subject (this is why so much of the old article was cut, it was a mess of opinions and tendentious in the extreme). Anything that even smells like an axe being ground will be challenged and cruft will be removed. Bacondrum (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- I understand that, but it takes two to tango, of course (here's an example which ended up involving User:Jimbo Wales). As such I'd ask the same of other editors. My goal here is expand on Call-out culture. Yes, I'm disappointed that so much of the old article is cut out, but I'll try to understand Wikipedia's standards going forward when making edits. - Sridc (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- What? Did you just share a link attacking Wikipedia for being a leftist conspiracy? At this point I have to question your bias. You should recuse yourself from editing political pages if that's the way you see it. I'm getting the impression that you are here pushing partisan right-wing politics. Don't edit pages that you have pet peeves about - I'm a trade unionist, I don't go anywhere near trade union or labour movement pages as I have very strong feelings about the subject, negate your bias. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- This comes across as a clear personal attack. Can't you engage in good faith? The link I shared is a tweet by Claire Lehmann that points to an edit-war at Quillette which necessitated the involvement of User:Jimbo Wales (and not about "Wikipedia being a leftist conspiracy"). And I used it to demonstrate the fact that your suggesting that I have political bias is rather silly, as others also share a similar bias. You have as much right to think I'm here "pushing partisam [sic] right-wing politics" as you have to think that the earth is flat, or that humans have four legs, but that doesn't change the fact that I have the right to edit pages here as I see fit. You should lay off the anger, and deal with your fellow human beings on an equal footing. Argue in good faith, your criticism of edits should reference Wikipedia policies and not bring in ad hominem accusations. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks - Sridc (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well it's not a personal attack and I'm not angry, just concerned that you are WP:NOTHERE. You may not edit as you see fit, Wikipedia is edited from a neutral point of view and some of your edits and twitter links suggest you may be doing otherwise. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your WP:NOBLECAUSE, or some book you like because it confirms your beliefs. I'm assuming good faith, but I have well founded concerns. Don't post fringe conspiracy guff here that rubbishes Wikipedia. Bacondrum (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Since Wikipedia discourages discussion of user conduct in article talk pages, I'll just end this by noting that there have been many complaints of your conduct in your talk page User talk:Bacondrum, and in fact I just left one. - Sridc (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well it's not a personal attack and I'm not angry, just concerned that you are WP:NOTHERE. You may not edit as you see fit, Wikipedia is edited from a neutral point of view and some of your edits and twitter links suggest you may be doing otherwise. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your WP:NOBLECAUSE, or some book you like because it confirms your beliefs. I'm assuming good faith, but I have well founded concerns. Don't post fringe conspiracy guff here that rubbishes Wikipedia. Bacondrum (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- This comes across as a clear personal attack. Can't you engage in good faith? The link I shared is a tweet by Claire Lehmann that points to an edit-war at Quillette which necessitated the involvement of User:Jimbo Wales (and not about "Wikipedia being a leftist conspiracy"). And I used it to demonstrate the fact that your suggesting that I have political bias is rather silly, as others also share a similar bias. You have as much right to think I'm here "pushing partisam [sic] right-wing politics" as you have to think that the earth is flat, or that humans have four legs, but that doesn't change the fact that I have the right to edit pages here as I see fit. You should lay off the anger, and deal with your fellow human beings on an equal footing. Argue in good faith, your criticism of edits should reference Wikipedia policies and not bring in ad hominem accusations. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks - Sridc (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- What? Did you just share a link attacking Wikipedia for being a leftist conspiracy? At this point I have to question your bias. You should recuse yourself from editing political pages if that's the way you see it. I'm getting the impression that you are here pushing partisan right-wing politics. Don't edit pages that you have pet peeves about - I'm a trade unionist, I don't go anywhere near trade union or labour movement pages as I have very strong feelings about the subject, negate your bias. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- I understand that, but it takes two to tango, of course (here's an example which ended up involving User:Jimbo Wales). As such I'd ask the same of other editors. My goal here is expand on Call-out culture. Yes, I'm disappointed that so much of the old article is cut out, but I'll try to understand Wikipedia's standards going forward when making edits. - Sridc (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- I see that at least one of the two feminist sources uses 'call-out culture' (not 'cancel culture'), and Aquillion has moved those references to the first paragraph. Nevertheless, since 'call-out culture' is not an uniquely feminist phenomenon I consider these sources and their descriptions to be highly biased to be used in the introductory paragraph. They can mentioned in the Description section, but the introduction paragraph must adhere WP:NPOV. This is my primary concern right now. In addition to the two sources I already recommend, I'd actually recommend more the description used by Jonathan Haidt. A social psychologist's description of a sociology related concept is more fitting than that of feminist theory. - Sridc (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- And of course, exclusively using the feminist sources in the introductory paragraph of a concept that is not feminist in nature is an extremely one-sided description of it, which majority of sources do not even state as such. Not exactly, neutral. This is why I recommend using the description by Jonathan Haidt (some of which is already in the article further below), if the two other sources I came up is not desirable enough. I'll try to find some descriptions from the book. - Sridc (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- I just went ahead and boldly made the edit. Feel free to cross-check the phrasing using Google Books search. - Sridc (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Haidt's book is unequivocal advocacy and is completely unacceptable in the lead or without an in-line citation. The scholarly sources you object to, meanwhile, are from peer-reviewed journals and (as they say) discuss a concept that had its source in feminist literature; therefore, they are some of the best sources available. --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- You say Haidt's book is unequivocal advocacy, but you ignore to state, advocacy for ... which position? Haidt's expertise is in social and moral psychology, which is exactly the domain of Call-out culture. Meanwhile, the feminist literature, as mentioned above, no matter how scholarly they are, suffer from their irrelevance in lead, inasmuch as call-out culture is not a feminist-specific notion, as it covers domains other than feminism. It is not like I'm fixated on Haidt; I am just not aware of any other expert source that describes call-out culture in a neutral fashion (i.e., without siding with any political side). What do you mean by "without an in-line citation"? Sridc (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- The name of the book is literally
The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure
- it takes a strident position on the topic in its title, unequivocally criticizing the topic. Therefore, any cites to it need to express that this is "according to Haidt" or otherwise frame it as Haidt's position and opinion rather than the unequivocal truth. The peer-reviewed journals are neutral; they are published in feminist journals, but that is to be expected given that that's where the concept got its start. They are the sort of sources we can cite for in-line descriptions of neutral facts, yet you described them as opinionsAccording to some feminist authors...
while presenting Haidt's stridently critical culture-war take on the topic as a fact in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)- You still haven't stated to which position Haidt's book is an unequivocal advocacy for. So which is it? The title doesn't answer that to me. Yes, Haidt does criticize call-out culture in the book, however his description of call-out culture (as used in the lead) itself is neutral. It is also domain-neutral; whereas the feminist sources' description of call-out culture is as it is pertaining to the domain of feminism. - Sridc (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Criticizing the topic is, of course, advocacy, which makes him a WP:BIASED source. We can't rely on him for the description. While published in (reputable) feminist journals, the academic sources define the term for general use, using terms that passed peer-review; and their definition is more complete, describing the broad aim or purpose for that sort of criticism. The fact that Haidt omits that aim is obviously dubious given that he is a non-neutral source (ie. he has a motivation to manipulate his description in a way that puts the topic in as negative a light as possible) - therefore, we should rely on the academic ones. --Aquillion (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Feminist Media Studies authors' can be as much WP:BIASED in a uncritical approval of call-out culture to the point that would ignore mentioning the shaming/ punishing aspect to it. My opposition is nothing to do with academic papers, rather it is to do with being a feminist source. Of course the lead does not bring the criticism aspect of Haidt at all; the shaming/ punishing aspect of call-out culture is a reported fact (as multiple reliable sources already confirm). I proposed to include accountability as well. The lead should be balanced, without siding to any one side. - Sridc (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Criticizing the topic is, of course, advocacy, which makes him a WP:BIASED source. We can't rely on him for the description. While published in (reputable) feminist journals, the academic sources define the term for general use, using terms that passed peer-review; and their definition is more complete, describing the broad aim or purpose for that sort of criticism. The fact that Haidt omits that aim is obviously dubious given that he is a non-neutral source (ie. he has a motivation to manipulate his description in a way that puts the topic in as negative a light as possible) - therefore, we should rely on the academic ones. --Aquillion (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- The other neutrality issue with the former lead with the feminist sources is that it ignores mentioning the shaming/ punishing aspects of call-out culture. Haidt's description does. It would seem that an improvement to the current lead would be to mention both aspects. - Sridc (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- You would need a neutral source for the "shaming / punishing" aspect, or a higher-quality one. Haidt's personal opinion that call-out culture is about "shaming and punishing" fits his aggressive culture-war criticism of the concept, but without a neutral source we obviously cannot put that in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- If that's how you like play this out, one could say the same for feminist sources (feminism being advocacy/activism) as well, viz.: You would need a neutral source for the "accountability (sans shaming/ punishing)" aspect, or a higher-quality one. Feminist Media Studies authors' personal opinion that call-out culture is exclusively about accountability, without any shaming/ punishing fits their aggressive culture-war approval of the concept, but without a neutral source we obviously cannot put that in the article voice. - Sridc (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Anyway, there are multiple reliable sources talking about the "shaming/ punishing" aspect. For example, "the called-out person is also thrust out of social or professional circles — either on social media or in the real world or both." (from the article, citing nytimes). This is 'punishing'. And 'shaming' is obvious; after all this article has always had the "form of public shaming" description. - Sridc (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- You would need a neutral source for the "shaming / punishing" aspect, or a higher-quality one. Haidt's personal opinion that call-out culture is about "shaming and punishing" fits his aggressive culture-war criticism of the concept, but without a neutral source we obviously cannot put that in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- You still haven't stated to which position Haidt's book is an unequivocal advocacy for. So which is it? The title doesn't answer that to me. Yes, Haidt does criticize call-out culture in the book, however his description of call-out culture (as used in the lead) itself is neutral. It is also domain-neutral; whereas the feminist sources' description of call-out culture is as it is pertaining to the domain of feminism. - Sridc (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- The name of the book is literally
- You say Haidt's book is unequivocal advocacy, but you ignore to state, advocacy for ... which position? Haidt's expertise is in social and moral psychology, which is exactly the domain of Call-out culture. Meanwhile, the feminist literature, as mentioned above, no matter how scholarly they are, suffer from their irrelevance in lead, inasmuch as call-out culture is not a feminist-specific notion, as it covers domains other than feminism. It is not like I'm fixated on Haidt; I am just not aware of any other expert source that describes call-out culture in a neutral fashion (i.e., without siding with any political side). What do you mean by "without an in-line citation"? Sridc (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Haidt's book is unequivocal advocacy and is completely unacceptable in the lead or without an in-line citation. The scholarly sources you object to, meanwhile, are from peer-reviewed journals and (as they say) discuss a concept that had its source in feminist literature; therefore, they are some of the best sources available. --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- I just went ahead and boldly made the edit. Feel free to cross-check the phrasing using Google Books search. - Sridc (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
bias language in lead
I personally think the language Sridc has used in this version of the lead is loaded with bias. Just because the author of an opinions piece says something doesn't mean we need to quote it verbatim. Any other editors care to share thoughts on the matter? Bacondrum (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hard no on using the Forbes contributor piece. We should not be citing it at all - it's effectively a random blogpost by someone with only a tangentially-connected background and without the widely-recognized expertise that would make their opinions noteworthy - but if we do cite it, it definitely needs to be with in in-line citation making it clear that this is just the author's opinions; and it is plainly WP:UNDUE for the lead. This edit is completely baffling; it removed two high-quality sources which, contrary to the edit summary, discuss call-out culture; and it replaced them with a random self-published opinion piece. --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, on closer inspection, I think I have a better idea of what happened. Those two sources were originally for call-out culture (where I restored them, and which they both touch on), but at some point ended up moved to the second paragraph, on cancel culture. So Sridc probably only searched them quickly for "cancel culture" before removing them, and didn't notice they were actually originally cited for call-out culture. You can see what happened if you look at all edits since the dispute began; the sources were originally at the end of the paragraph (presumably intended to cite the entire thing) and were accidentally moved to the Cancel Culture subparagraph when it was split, despite being about Call-Out Culture. Then they were removed for not being about Cancel Culture, and the first sentence was rewritten because it was no longer cited. But either way, it's clear that they're better sources for the first sentence than a Forbes contributor piece. --Aquillion (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- The bias in lead should now be fixed, per my edit as reported in Talk:Call-out_culture#The_two_feminist_sources. - Sridc (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Haidt's book is a stridently WP:BIASED source and cannot be used without in-line citations; it's also WP:UNDUE for the lead given that it's a pop-culture book. The idea that it could be given prominence over two reliable cites to scholarly publications is absurd. It's clear you have some problem with the two refs (you keep referring to them as "feminist", perhaps because you object to their field of study?), but they are from high-quality peer-reviewed publications and are therefore top-notch sources, unlike the stuff you're continuously trying to replace them with. --Aquillion (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest not to spread the discussion in multiple sections. I addressed the issue with the Feminist Media Studies sources above; they too are WP:BIASED (feminism is a form of activism, whose bias is political in nature; whereas call-out culture is a neutral sociological phenomenon) inasmuch as while they talk about accountability aspect, they purposefully ignore the shaming/ punitive aspect that Haidt's description addresses. See the undue section below, where I propose to keep them both - for a balanced and neutral lead. - Sridc (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Aquillion Nailed-it! If the feminist studies refs are biased, Haidt's book is rabidly so. Sridc, you can't erase women or feminists from the discussion. Shamefully biased editing from you, IMO Bacondrum (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- I never intended to "erase women or feminists from the discussion" -- claiming so is bordering on violation of WP:AGF, so I'd like us to keep assuming good faith -- in fact I actually proposed to include it, but in a balanced manner (my previous change to remove these references was based on a misunderstanding as they were cited incorrectly in the article). - Sridc (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Aquillion Nailed-it! If the feminist studies refs are biased, Haidt's book is rabidly so. Sridc, you can't erase women or feminists from the discussion. Shamefully biased editing from you, IMO Bacondrum (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest not to spread the discussion in multiple sections. I addressed the issue with the Feminist Media Studies sources above; they too are WP:BIASED (feminism is a form of activism, whose bias is political in nature; whereas call-out culture is a neutral sociological phenomenon) inasmuch as while they talk about accountability aspect, they purposefully ignore the shaming/ punitive aspect that Haidt's description addresses. See the undue section below, where I propose to keep them both - for a balanced and neutral lead. - Sridc (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
undue
Aquillion - Taking a step back, I propose that we remain mindful of keeping the article balanced with neutral point of view. I gather that there is both "pro" and "against" views of call-out culture. The feminist sources, for instance, talk about accountability (and presumably social justice as well). Other places talk about the punitive nature of call-out culture. Articles from reliable sources tend to cover the later quite often. But the lead should take into account both. I'll accumulate the sources in that regard here. Beginning with:
A frequently cited problem with call-outs is that it’s all too easy to get carried away and overpunish people, turning alleged perpetrators of upsetting acts into victims themselves. “What can often start out as well-intentioned and necessary criticism far too quickly devolves into brutish displays of virtual tar-and-feathering,” writes the activist and writer Ruby Hamad.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/nov/01/call-out-culture-obama-social-media
- Sridc (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sridc is blatantly WP:CHERRYPICKING, pushing his own POV and clearly WP:NOTHERE. I'm no longer willing to engage with Sridc any more than I have to. Bacondrum (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Aquillion Many thanks for your continued efforts. Always reasonable and articulate. Bacondrum (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bacondrum Please don't continue personal attacks and assuming of bad faith (see here) in article Talk pages, which should remain focused on the topic in hand. Your accusation of me cherrypicking holds no water, as you are responding to my comment which in fact proposes the opposite. - Sridc (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Aquillion - Here's my proposal for the final balanced lead. Let's move (or copy by summarizing) the first paragraph of Description section dealing with Feminist Media sources to the lead paragraph, as its second sentence (leaving the first as is). So the new lead will look something like this:
Call-out culture (also known as outrage culture) is a form of public shaming that involves people identifying offenses committed by members of their community and then publicly "calling out" the offenders and thereby shaming or punishing them. Its proponents aim to hold individuals and groups accountable for their actions by calling attention to behavior that is perceived to be problematic (typically everyday acts of sexism, misogyny), usually on social media.
- - Sridc (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's better, but this "(typically everyday acts of sexism, misogyny)" is original research. Who says it's typically everyday acts of sexism, misogyny"? Bacondrum (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- The part you quoted comes from the two aforementioned feminist references. Direct quote from reference 1 (Feminism: A Fourth Wave?): "Many commentators argue that the internet itself has enabled a shift from ‘third-wave’ to ‘fourth-wave’ feminism. What is certain is that the internet has created a ‘call-out’ culture, in which sexism or misogyny can be ‘called out’ and challenged.". Direct quote from reference 2 (Rape Culture and social media): "Many participants explained how social media offers an important vehicle for seeking accountability and justice—from targeting everyday acts of sexism and rape-supportive statements to sexual violence itself. [...] the internet provides a powerful technology for exposing problematic behaviour of others—“‘call out’ culture” (e.g., Ealasaid Munro 2013)—in ways that have potential to disrupt traditional power relations" - Sridc (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Note that the second citation references the first. Also, it mentions the word justice which I think is worth of mentioning in our lead. - Sridc (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Original research and synth. The sources do not describe call-out culture as typically everyday acts of sexism, misogyny, you do. Bacondrum (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Here's the Wikipedia policy on SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". The proposed passage associates "perceived to be problematic" with "typically everyday acts of sexism, misogyny". Reference 1 says "a ‘call-out’ culture, in which sexism or misogyny can be ‘called out’ and challenged." Reference 2 cites reference 1; furthermore it mentions "everyday acts of sexism and rape-supportive statements to sexual violence" (which, effectively, is sexism and misogyny) associating it with "problematic behaviour of others" (which is where the "perceived to be problematic" phrase of the article is sourced from). Thus, no conclusion was reached or implied that was not explicitly stated by any of these two sources. If it is not "typically everyday acts of sexism, misogyny" - what do you think these sources explicit associate their problematic behaviour phrase with, then? - Sridc (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Original research and synth. The sources do not describe call-out culture as typically everyday acts of sexism, misogyny, you do. Bacondrum (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Note that the second citation references the first. Also, it mentions the word justice which I think is worth of mentioning in our lead. - Sridc (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- The part you quoted comes from the two aforementioned feminist references. Direct quote from reference 1 (Feminism: A Fourth Wave?): "Many commentators argue that the internet itself has enabled a shift from ‘third-wave’ to ‘fourth-wave’ feminism. What is certain is that the internet has created a ‘call-out’ culture, in which sexism or misogyny can be ‘called out’ and challenged.". Direct quote from reference 2 (Rape Culture and social media): "Many participants explained how social media offers an important vehicle for seeking accountability and justice—from targeting everyday acts of sexism and rape-supportive statements to sexual violence itself. [...] the internet provides a powerful technology for exposing problematic behaviour of others—“‘call out’ culture” (e.g., Ealasaid Munro 2013)—in ways that have potential to disrupt traditional power relations" - Sridc (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's better, but this "(typically everyday acts of sexism, misogyny)" is original research. Who says it's typically everyday acts of sexism, misogyny"? Bacondrum (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- On second thought, however, I think we need multiple sources to delineate what exactly problematic behaviour entails here. The CBC reference mentions racism, for instance. So I guess I'll leave out the parenthesized part from the lead for now, and look into more sources before adding it in an appropriate form. I think we have reached the consensus on the proposal otherwise. - Sridc (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Criticism of Haidt
The critical viewpoint, both in the lead and in the description, appears to be not well connected to the rest of the article. Specifically the claim that most US students "despise call-out culture", for which the criticism applies, is very narrow & specific. If we are going to include criticism of Haidt's observations of call-out culture, it should be better than this. Specifically it should address the subset of Haidt's explanations (of call-out culture) as used in the article. The mention in lead in particular gives the impression that it was rushed out the door so as to add support to the undue tag. - Sridc (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- I read the article, and perused the relevant sections of the book. The "private conversation" part in the Wiki article is grossly inaccurate, as it applies only to presidents not the students. Both the book and the Guardian article refers to "conversations with high school and college students" and not "private conversations". I've corrected the Wiki article--both in the lead and in "Description"--to that effect. Now the Haidt criticism reads like this:
Critics note Haidt’s claim that most US students "despise call-out culture", is based on conversations with high school and college students
- Which doesn't seem exactly like a good criticism, does it?
- How I am pushing Haidt's view if I have only corrected an obvious misrepresentation of the source? To be clear, I do think that viewpoints criticizing Haidt should be allowed, to provide a balanced perspective, however what we have currently is not a good criticism; it almost reads like a tautology (after being corrected for the misrepresentation). - Sridc (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Popular culture
@Bacondrum: - In regards to your revert of my edit adding back the "In popular culture" (from the original Cancel culture page before it got merged) wherein you stated "previous consensus was to remove", I perused the the previous discussion (Talk:Call-out_culture/Archive_1#In_popular_culture) and could not find such a consensus, other than one person (you) agreeing to its removal. Four users in total were involved in that discussion; and here's their response:
- FOARP - Uncertain
- Sourcerery - Keep.
- DIYeditor - Keep.
- Bacondrum (yourself) - Remove.
I'm not too sure how you consider a 1 out of 4 vote to be 'consensus'? Since the consensus in fact appears to keep, I'd rather you reinstate that change. As you observed, I too noticed that citations to be a bit excessive, so we can cut down on it. - Sridc (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- It was discussed elsewhere too. This is a page about a neologism, a term. It's not about Southpark or the Simpsons - this is text book fan cruft and completely undue. What are we going to do write an interminable list of times the term has been mentioned? Bacondrum (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- a) Where was it "discussed elsewhere"? Please provide a link. b) It is very common to have "In popular culture" section in Wikipedia; Safe space for example has it, and even mentions Southpark episodes. What makes this article special that they ought to be removed? Do explain. - Sridc (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bacondrum, please familiarize yourself with the relevant guideline at MOS:CULTURALREFS. While lists of cultural products that merely mention an article's subject in passing should indeed be avoided (and could be reasonably described as "cruft"), the fact that a notable TV series like Southpark devoted an entire episode to it can and should be mentioned, especially if covered by independent sources. It seems that this version satisfies the guideline's requirements just fine. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, fair enough I'm being over zealous in this case, in and of itself I guess I have no objection as long as it's sourced properly. To give some context to my over zealous attitude towards recentism, bias and cruft here - this was what the article looked like the first time I ever heard the term used and decided to look up it's meaning here [1]... I appreciate your feedback. Bacondrum (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input HaeB. In case you are wondering, here are my thoughts on how this article used to be comprehensive, but not anymore and how it can be improved going forward, with the help of neutral third-parties / mediators. —SridYO 14:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Moira Weigel
This:
The authors believe that most US students "despise call-out culture", however Moira Weigel, reviewing their book in The Guardian, notes that they had come to that conclusion based solely on conversations with high school and college students.
is an unnecessarily unwieldy way to phrase what it intends to convey. I'd rephrase it to be:
From their conversations with high school and college students, the authors have come to believe that most US students "despise call-out culture" .
—SridYO 15:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Haidt's book should not be used in the lead and once removed this counterpoint wont be needed. A prime example of why biased sources like Haidt's book are not appropriate sources for statements of fact. Bacondrum (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
New reliable source: David Cunningham
Hearing Vocation Differently: Meaning, Purpose, and Identity in the Multi-Faith Academy , David Cunningham, Oxford University Press. pp. 46 ff. [2]
"[Call-out culture is defined as] the tendency among progressives, radicals, activists, and community organizers to publicly name instances or patterns of oppressive behaviour and language use by others".
And it appears to cover a wider range of viewpoints. For example: "call-out culture is not limited to "progressives, radicals, activists, and community organizers"; it is prevalent in more conservative circles as well".
The nearby passages discuss call-out in great detail. I'll take a closer look at this book, and come up with a summary.
—SridYO 15:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, this is an excellent source, exactly what this article wants. He is widely published, isn't pushing a particular view and has highly relevant expertise as a professor of sociology. Cunningham an excellent reputation for writing on social conflict and social movements. Bacondrum (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
New reliable source: Dianna Anderson
Title: Problematic: How Toxic Callout Culture Is Destroying Feminism
—SridYO 16:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Who? Not a RS, biased and not an expert - it's opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- You were already given this source by FOARP and you agreed that it is a reliable source. Furthermore Psantora confirmed in that thread to be reliable as well.(ref). Even if you have suddenly changed your mind, the consensus is still 3-to-1, and it is to include the source. —SridYO 22:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- I did not agree that it's a reliable source. What I agree on is irrelevant anyway - who is Dianna Anderson? She written a couple of books and an opinions piece, her opinion is undue - especially with such a contentious subject, the source should be of a higher standard respected and relevant academics, not some random no one has ever heard of simply because their opinion concurs with your own. And please ping editors more sparingly (you don't need to ping an editor every single time you mention them). Bacondrum (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- "who is Dianna Anderson?" - Dianna Anderson has a Master's in English Literature from Baylor University and a Master of Studies in Women's Studies from Oxford University(ref). She has a written a book literally with "callout culture" in the title. I agree with the two other editors, User:FOARP & USER:Psantora, that there should be nothing wrong with using reliable primary sources in support of specific points in the article as long as they are properly attributed. —SridYO 23:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Lots of people have masters degrees, and lots of people have published books, that in and of itself does not make one a RS or their opinions due. So how do you intend to use it? I mean "How Toxic Call-out Culture Is Destroying Feminism" it's not like she hasn't made her feeling about the subject clear...I'm super dubious about using this one. Bacondrum (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'll have to find a way to access and glance the book, but meanwhile I located this from an older revision:
It is not as extreme as describing it as divisive, for instance, but does reflect one group of viewpoints very well. If a better source can be located, reflecting a similar viewpoint, we would use that instead of course. Incidentally, I also located this from that very revision, presenting the other group of viewpoint, but in a more elaborate manner and with better context than it already is in the current article:In her book "Problematic: How Toxic Callout Culture Is Destroying Feminism", Dianna E. Anderson stated that "The line between calling out and harrassment is a thin one, especially in a world of social media "pile ons" and blacklisting".
—SridYO 00:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Call-out culture has also be characterised positively, with Dr. Ealasaid Munro, a lecturer in Communications, Media, and Culture at the University of Stirling describing it as one "in which sexism or misogyny can be called out and challenged ... facilitat[ing] the creation of a global community of feminists who use the Internet both for discussion and activism".
- I'm not willing to let this article return to a being a WP:QUOTEFARM with endless "x says this and Y says that and the Obama's pet dog reckons this and David Brooks says it was Stalin". That being said Dr. Munro is an excellent source. Bacondrum (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- I definitely agree that we should not overuse quotations; they should be used sparingly and only when necessary to be included (no other better sources exist for that viewpoint). I haven't yet looked into David Brooks - but you should of course not let your feelings about what whoever said in relation to Stalin to get in the way of Wikipedia editing. —SridYO 00:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not willing to let this article return to a being a WP:QUOTEFARM with endless "x says this and Y says that and the Obama's pet dog reckons this and David Brooks says it was Stalin". That being said Dr. Munro is an excellent source. Bacondrum (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'll have to find a way to access and glance the book, but meanwhile I located this from an older revision:
- Lots of people have masters degrees, and lots of people have published books, that in and of itself does not make one a RS or their opinions due. So how do you intend to use it? I mean "How Toxic Call-out Culture Is Destroying Feminism" it's not like she hasn't made her feeling about the subject clear...I'm super dubious about using this one. Bacondrum (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- "who is Dianna Anderson?" - Dianna Anderson has a Master's in English Literature from Baylor University and a Master of Studies in Women's Studies from Oxford University(ref). She has a written a book literally with "callout culture" in the title. I agree with the two other editors, User:FOARP & USER:Psantora, that there should be nothing wrong with using reliable primary sources in support of specific points in the article as long as they are properly attributed. —SridYO 23:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Ealasaid Munro
Already in the article, but does not exactly present an accurate picture of what's actually said in the source.
- Nakamura, Lisa: The Unwanted Labour of Social Media: Women of Colour Call Out Culture As Venture Community Management
- Dr. Ealasaid Munro, a lecturer in Communications, Media, and Culture at the University of Stirling, defines "Callout culture" as one "in which sexism or misogyny can be called out and challenged ... facilitat[ing] the creation of a global community of feminists who use the Internet both for discussion and activism" (quoted here).
—SridYO 16:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Both of these are great. Relevant, qualified and balanced. Bacondrum (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
What makes the contemporary idea of call-out culture different
This is explained by Adrienne Matei in The Guardian:
A version of call-out culture has been functioning for centuries as a tool for the marginalized and their allies to reveal injustice and the need for reform. The practise of directly addressing inequality underpins countless social justice movements, from civil rights to Standing Rock. The contemporary idea of a “call-out”, however, generally refers to interpersonal confrontations occurring between individuals on social media. In theory, call-outs should be very simple – someone does something wrong, people tell them, and they avoid doing it again in the future. Yet you only need to spend a short amount of time on the internet to know that call-out culture is in fact extremely divisive.
This article in its current state is sorely ignorant of many important aspects of call-out culture, and this (its divisive nature) is chief among them, and is a ripe candidate for inclusion. —SridYO 17:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Who? Lifestyle op-ed, not even close to being an RS, biased and not an expert. Bacondrum (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- What makes this "not even close to being a RS, biased and not an expert" but that of Moira Weigel (also The Guardian), which is currently in the article, does? —SridYO 22:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Opinions pieces are primary sources - plus that's a lifestyle and fashion opinion. Moira Weigel is a postdoctoral scholar at the Harvard University with expertise in a relevant field and that was an article - a secondary source by a scholar. Read up on reliable sources
- What makes this "not even close to being a RS, biased and not an expert" but that of Moira Weigel (also The Guardian), which is currently in the article, does? —SridYO 22:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- WP:RS however does not present the same stringent stance as yours. You are effectively saying "it is op-ed / primary source; we should not use it", but Wikipedia's policy (WP:RSPRIMARY) is more along the lines of "prefer secondary source where available, but if you must, use primary sources with caution". Acc. to WP:RSPSOURCES, "The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION", and if we follow RSOPINION and use this particular source the article would read something to the effect of "Adrienne Matei says....". I don't see a problem here. —SridYO 23:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- The guidelines urge caution in their use and makes it clear they are to be used "with care" and "only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source". There's also the due weight aspect - when balanced with due weight primary sources rarely make the cut and should be used sparingly. They can be used, but not in the manner they've been used in this article. If Bell Hooks or Slavoj Žižek weighed in via an opinions piece that might warrant using a primary source (quoting them), but not some random lifestyle and fashion writer. 23:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Bacondrum (talk)
- WP:RS however does not present the same stringent stance as yours. You are effectively saying "it is op-ed / primary source; we should not use it", but Wikipedia's policy (WP:RSPRIMARY) is more along the lines of "prefer secondary source where available, but if you must, use primary sources with caution". Acc. to WP:RSPSOURCES, "The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION", and if we follow RSOPINION and use this particular source the article would read something to the effect of "Adrienne Matei says....". I don't see a problem here. —SridYO 23:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
New reliable source: Meghan Daum
Meghan Daum's book “The Problem With Everything” (ref).
- "2018 was the year that the concept of "cancel culture" went mainstream" (then goes on to provide more context of its beginning, involving Roseanne Barr, Kevin Hart and Louis C.K.)
—SridYO 20:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- On the surface this one looks okay, but I'd like to hear what other editors think of this one. Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Comedians who used cancel culture as their primary theme
Question for fellow Wikipedia editors. Are comedy shows that used call-out culture as their primary theme to be included in the "In popular culture" section (I think not?) or in other sections? A very good example is Dave Chappelle: Sticks & Stones whose primary subject is cancel culture (this article). —SridYO 20:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Possibly, but not if it becomes a list of every person who ever mentioned the subject, it should be selective and limited - they need to be demonstrably noteworthy Bacondrum (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
bias and pushing
"This article in its current state is sorely ignorant of many important aspects of call-out culture, and this (its divisive nature) is chief among them, and is a ripe candidate for inclusion."
Just one of many examples where Srid's bias is hanging out. You are supposed to present verifiable information, not push your view that the subject has in your words a divisive nature Bacondrum (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Cherry picking authors with no particular expertise on the subject (other than Haidt), to push the view that call out culture is divisive in nature (I happen to agree, but what you and I think is irrelevant and should not be evident in the edits we make). Haidt, Daum, Matei and Anderson all have fairly obvious and strident bias - they seem to have been selected for their views rather than their expertise. If we allow this kind of view pushing other editors are going to come and push the opposing view and the article will be an illegible dogs breakfast of tendentious opinion like it was when I first came across it Bacondrum (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- See WP:AGF. You should address the content, and not the motives of other editors. It is almost never a fruitful course of action, especially on article Talk pages. The "divisive nature" of call-out culture, is not my view as you claim, rather the view of many authors. I stated one source further above, where Adrienne Matei of The Guardian, called it "extremely divisive". WP:NPOV does not mean exclusion of certain points of view (here, the POV of the subject being disruptive), but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due. We will of course aim to report different views (that includes you " the opposing view") on a subject adequately, but that should reflect the relative levels of support for those views, such that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. —SridYO 22:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not making a personal attack. It is possible for us to work together. But, when you say the subject has a "divisive nature" (and those were your words) it's hard to ignore the bias implicit in that statement. When you write off peer reviewed academic papers as "feminist sources" in favour of a fervently biased book and a pile of primary sources then it's hard to ignore said bias. It's nothing personal, I just want this article to be encyclopedic in tone and content, not a tendentious set of lists that reads like a dogs breakfast.
- Sure, I agree with your intent. And let's work together. For the record--and in the interest of helping clear the air--I never "[wrote] off peer reviewed academic papers as "feminist sources"" (I'm not very knowledgeable of academic feminist theories, nor was English my first language, so my use of 'feminist sources' meant 'sources from academic feminist studies' or something to that effect). You and I in fact both agreed to remove them (your exact words "they should go and related assertions should go too"), but later Aquillion exlained that it was a misunderstanding; so the sources were (rightfully) restored. I even think we should use those sources to provide more context to the article. The opinions of editors (you and me) does not matter; only that of sources that represent the prominent views.
- Now, taking about the article itself - as I see there are two groups of viewpoints: the original aim of call-out culture is to hold individuals accountable (for social justice, as far as I can understand), and the sources from the Feminism studies cover this viewpoint (though we could use more sources here), and the other group of viewpoint holds it in a critical light ("divisive" is perhaps an extreme characterization here) while not negating the original aims of maintaining justice. I agree that we should be careful not to 'tip' over too much to one side); but the article should respect WP:NPOV by reflecting the relative levels of support for these both groups of views. —SridYO 22:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, that all sounds much more agreeable to me. Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. The article should include some info about advocates and detractors - in terms of due weight, culture wars are not the subject of the article and should not make up the bulk of it. The article is about a neologism and the content should reflect that in that it should describe the subject in a neutral tone first and foremost. Read up on primary sources for my objections to the use of opinions pieces. I believe with such a contentious and recent neologism we should use the highest level of caution, we should be looking to quality academic sources and articles and avoiding the myriad of popular, ideologically driven books published on the subject - if the book is firmly for or against, pushing an ideological line then we really shouldn't be using it, or use it sparingly and very cautiously. Bacondrum (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Now, taking about the article itself - as I see there are two groups of viewpoints: the original aim of call-out culture is to hold individuals accountable (for social justice, as far as I can understand), and the sources from the Feminism studies cover this viewpoint (though we could use more sources here), and the other group of viewpoint holds it in a critical light ("divisive" is perhaps an extreme characterization here) while not negating the original aims of maintaining justice. I agree that we should be careful not to 'tip' over too much to one side); but the article should respect WP:NPOV by reflecting the relative levels of support for these both groups of views. —SridYO 22:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Psychological effects of call-out culture
Not necessarily as a section, but as an aspect to add to the article. Here's an Atlantic piece (a reliable source) that specifically talks about stress among students as the result of call-out culture. 00:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sure Haidt's observations regarding safetyism/depression can be consolidated along with this one. —SridYO 00:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- From the academic Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2019.1673600
—SridYO 01:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[...] today’s campus call-out culture makes it yet harder for students to hold—or even just consider—unorthodox ideas for fear of being shamed on social media
- From the academic Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2019.1673600
#MeToo
The connection with MeToo is worth mentioning. Here's an academic source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1350506818765318?journalCode=ejwa
Since 2014, we have been studying the ways feminists have increasingly turned to digital technologies and social media platforms to dialogue, network and organize against contemporary sexism, misogyny and rape culture (see Mendes et al., forthcoming). As a research team the sheer volume of attention paid towards this hashtag took us by surprise, but the fact survivors took to social media to share their experiences and engage in a ‘call-out culture’ resonated strongly with our research findings over the past three years. Although #MeToo is perhaps one of the most high-profile examples of digital feminist activism we have yet encountered, it follows a growing trend of the public’s willingness to engage with resistance and challenges to sexism, patriarchy and other forms of oppression via feminist uptake of digital communication.
—SridYO 00:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Good source, I'm sure it'll be useful in expanding the article, but MeToo - That's a spurious connection, do the authors make more of a conection than simply mentioning them in the same paragraph? MeToo is a separate thing. Lets see what other editors say. Bacondrum (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
New reliable source: Suzanna Danuta Walters
Suzanna Danuta Walters is the director of the Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program and professor of sociology at Northeastern University, Boston. Her review article titled "Academe’s Poisonous Call-Out Culture". —SridYO 00:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe, it's an opinion piece. Again, I'd like to see either how it'll be used and what other editors think.
- I have a problem with these articles and books that have clear bias in their titles. We should be looking for sources that treat the subject in a neutral manner. You've found some good ones like Professor David Cunningham and Dr Ealasaid Munro, most the others are opinionated and unqualified/not relevant Bacondrum (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)