Talk:Karen (slang)/Archive 2

no consensus against

@TWM03, the manual of style says Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white); there is no consensus against what is sometimes perceived as inconsistency in the same article (Black but white). Please let's discuss. —valereee (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I have just looked at this and I think I may have misread it before. However, the statement you are referring to was recently modified to say the opposite to what it previously said by a user who didn't change the source: the linked source refers to a proposal to capitalise "Black" but not "white" that was voted down. I don't really see any logical reason to have this inconsistency, I am aware that some newspapers use "Black" and "white" but the decisions seemed to be controversial and sometimes based on a notion that white people are in some way more diverse as a group than black people, which I don't think is true, and even if it was I don't see why this would be a justification to capitalise one and not the other ("Scottish" and "European" are both capitalised in English despite one group being clearly more diverse than the other). Most ethnic labels are based on geography or languages and are therefore capitalised because of their status as proper nouns (Asian, Hispanic, European, etc.). However, this does not apply to the labels "black" and "white", so in my opinion there is no need to capitalise them except in the contexts given in the MOS, or if the terms are liable to be confused with the colours of the same names. My view is consistent with many other Wikipedia articles that I have read, where the terms are not usually capitalised. However, if either is going to be capitalised then I think both should be. TWM03 (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@TWM03, generally we don't make this change, as it is as you've said controversial, unless there are good reasons for making a change. The reason I believe capitalizing Black/white makes sense for this particular article is that the article is actually about a racism topic and therefore we should be more sensitive to the issue and follow what most RS are currently doing, which is Black/white.

The recent changes were due to recent discussion. It doesn't really matter what you personally believe about this question, or what I personally believe. It doesn't matter what other articles use, per Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What matters is that we have no consensus against using B/w and that changing it to your own personal preference is not okay without a good reason. Please ping on reply or I might miss it. —valereee (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, the essay you directed me to seems to be primarily about criteria for notability, rather than things relating to MOS, so I don't think it applies here. While there may be no consensus against B/w, there is certainly no consensus against b/w, and it seems to be the most common convention on Wikipedia. All the discussions relating to Wikipedia policy seemed to have most opinions opposing B/w, with no preference for either B/W or b/w over the other. This article is not about a racism topic to a greater extent than Racism in the United States, White people or Black people, all of which use the b/w convention, so your argument doesn't seem to be in accordance with majority opinion. I should also point out that both of us have changed the convention used in this article to something other than what it was previously (I changed it from B/W to b/w, then you changed it from b/w to B/w) without a consensus against the previous convention but giving a reason for the change, so I am unsure what I have done that is "not okay". Regarding your argument about reliable sources using B/w, from the article I linked it is clear that there is no consensus on which conventions to use by reliable sources. I am also unsure why points of grammar should be decided by usage in reliable news sources when they are considered authoritative for their accurate reporting of news stories and are not necessarily an authority on stylistic conventions. TWM03 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT is probably what you're looking for.

The most recent discussion at this talk page seems to have landed on capital B but no consensus on W/w. I support the use of B/w, but am willing to compromise to B/W. I oppose lowercase b generally and particularly in this case as there's so much quotation of sources using capital B. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Having considered the arguments more, I am now also leaning towards B/W as a compromise. This would be in line with the clear majority of reliable sources that use "Black" and the fact that sources disagree on whether to use "White" or "white", as well as satisfying the desire for consistency that I believe most editors agree on based on past discussions on this issue. The disadvantages of the compromise are (1) that it is not the convention most commonly used on Wikipedia, though this argument is discouraged by WP:OTHERCONTENT as it is possible that the majority of pages on Wikipedia that use these terms are "wrong", and (2) that as per MOS:CAPS terms should only be capitalised if they are capitalised in a "substantial majority" of sources, which "white" is not. However, I believe that this principle should be overruled in this case on the grounds that more broadly the policy on capitalisation states that it should only be used for grammatical reasons and not for emphasis, and since there is no grammatical difference in the function of the terms "Black" and "White" I believe both should be treated equally. Do you feel these arguments are valid? TWM03 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I do, actually. I think this is a decision that needs to be made at the article level. Consistency just isn't that important. —valereee (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

TWM03, I don't think we've got consensus yet on B/W, and Brown is definitely off the table per MOS:PEOPLELANG. Could you revert your edits while we continue to discuss?

@Valereee, we reached an agreement here and then you modified the discussion to make it look as if no agreement had been reached, and then edited the page to match your own opinion. I'm not sure if there is a policy against this but it doesn't make discussion easy. Also please sign your posts.

I did not add the term "Brown", it was already being used and I changed it to be capitalised. I agree that this should be removed or put in quote marks.

Since WP:MOS states that capitalisation should only be used for grammatical reasons (excluding stylising even if terms may be stylised in a majority of RS), we need a grammatical reason to capitalise or not capitalise, regardless of usage in RS. You can argue that "Black" and "White" are ethnonyms and should therefore be capitalised, or you can argue that there is no need as they are not derived from proper nouns. Either way, the spirit of the rule would suggest the same convention for both terms.

The convention currently used in the article is how it was before this discussion started. If I reverted all of my edits there would be no relevant effect on the article. TWM03 (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually I have double-checked and what I said in the third paragraph wasn't entirely accurate. I will read the policies in more detail. TWM03 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please ignore what I wrote in the third paragraph, however here is a discussion that resulted in a consensus against B/w. This is cited on the page you linked to me but I believe the page has been edited without justification to contradict the findings of this discussion. TWM03 (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, here is a source (it seems like it should be considered reliable) that states that neither "black" nor "white" should be capitalised. I don't think RS have a consensus on this. Apologies that my comments may seem unrelated to each other, I am looking into different aspects of this. TWM03 (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@TWM03, I didn't modify the discussion. I removed my own post, which hadn't been replied to yet, because I changed my mind. The change hadn't yet been made, I think? The critical MOS isn't the 2020 discussion link, it's the final para of MOS:PEOPLELANG, which takes into account that and other discussions (and covers Brown/brown, which MOS says shouldn't be used at all). —valereee (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, I think we can agree on the removal of "brown" - it is used in the source but the person being quoted only references black people, so "and Brown" can be removed from that sentence. I don't see any discussions where there was broad approval for B/w, but you're right that there doesn't seem to be any official policy explicitly prohibiting it. However I still prefer b/w because as per MOS:CAPS we avoid unnecessary capitalisation and some RS do not capitalise (sociological research is more authoritative than general news media regarding labelling of ethnic groups in my opinion). TWM03 (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@TWM03, I don't think MOS:CAPS is the critical policy here. I really thinks it's MOS:PEOPLELANG. I'm sorry to push back on this, I did give it a lot of thought, and normally I'm not a pusher-backer on anything that seems trivial. This is an article that is about racial issues, so in this case I finally came to the conclusion it's not a trivial decision. I think in such cases we need to be very careful, and for me B/w is what's most appropriate. It's what the majority of RS seem to have gone to. —valereee (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, MOS:PEOPLELANG does not support any one position over another. Regardless of the extent to which this article is about racial issues, I don't see what is careless or inappropriate about B/W or b/w. As per MOS:CAPS words must be consistently capitalised in a substantial majority of RS to warrant capitalisation, I'm not convinced this standard is met ("Black" is certainly not capitalised as consistently as "Tuesday" for example). I'm happy to compromise to B/W but B/w necessarily implies that grammar is not the reason for our choice of capitalisation, potentially leading to POV issues. TWM03 (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

On the guidelines point, I agree with valeree. PEOPLELANG is a specifically applicable subsection of CAPS. 'No consensus' at a centralized level means consensus at the article level can control. I am all for B/w everywhere and here in particular. I think it being used in the reliable sources is a minor point in favor, as we frequently diverge from RS in matters of style. Slightly more impactful is that we are quoting the RS and the quotes exclusively use B/w. In-article consistency is worth pursuing. My reasons for preferring it overall are unlikely to convince anyone if stated here, but most of the arguments are well presented already at existing discussions on the matter. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, this is not correct - if you read the article you can find many examples of quotes that use B/W (I did not modify anything in quote marks), and we have also quoted a source that uses b/w (though we didn't quote its use of the word "black"). I think my argument regarding the general principle of MOS:CAPS is valid, though I'm not sure if here is the right place to make it. The arguments I have seen at other discussions for B/w are: (1) that some or most RS use B/w (I'm not convinced enough of them do to constitute a consensus), (2) that "Black" people are a more coherent ethnic group than "white" people (even if this were true it wouldn't be a reason for or against capitalisation) and (3) that changing from "white" to "White" would entail agreeing with white supremacists (while we certainly want to avoid POV bias towards white supremacists, many reliable sources are using "White" so white supremacy is not the only possible reason for wanting to use "White". b/w would also avoid this issue). If you have any other arguments to raise we can consider them, but as of now I don't see consensus against the status quo. TWM03 (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@TWM03, yes, if you want to re-litigate current consensus, you'll have to open another RfC, and at your level of experience I wouldn't recommend that, especially since there've been recent RfCs on this very question. Here we can only follow current consensus, which leaves this decision to editors at the article. Your personal opinions on whether or why the current consensus is/isn't correct don't matter here at this discussion.

I'm trying to come up with an inoffensive way of saying this, and I apologize that I can't seem to, but it's a waste of your time and that of other editors here to keep making arguments based on your opinions of what consensus should be and why. In editing articles we deal with what consensus currently is, or we attempt to change that consensus via a new RfC. Which, again, you're free to try to do. —valereee (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, OK, so my understanding is that at the encyclopedia level there is no consensus. So how do we decide what to use for this article? TWM03 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

We discuss, but only to the point at which we realize we have some level of consensus and that that level of consensus isn't going to change. I actually think we have some level of consensus here; two of us are saying we prefer B/w to some degree, one is saying they prefer either B/W or b/w. How do you feel about accepting that as consensus? —valereee (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@TWM03, I just checked every quote, and unless I'm missing something, every one of them uses white. The only place any of the sources used White was in headlines. Within the body of the sources those quotes are taken from, they're all using white. —valereee (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, you're right - I assumed that the quotes in the article would be correct but it seems someone edited them. However, the only time we quote the word "Black" is when quoting The Atlantic quoting someone's Twitter account. The Atlantic itself is using b/w. Our sources seem to be split between B/w and b/w, so I'm leaning more towards b/w now as we generally err on the side of avoiding capitalisation. TWM03 (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Just above I asked you how you felt about accepting consensus? —valereee (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

TWM03 forgot to ping. —valereee (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter to this discussion what the sources, many of which are over a year old, were using at the time except for the quotes, but in the time since, The Atlantic has changed that and are now using B/w. Many, many sources went from b/w to B/w in the aftermath of George Floyd. A few went to B/W, and some haven't changed their style guides -- that Purdue writing center style guide is likely from years ago. The RfCs on this question focus on sources like AP, Reuters, WSJ, NYT, WaPo, Columbia Journalism Review, etc. But again that isn't a question for this discussion. Not going to ping you as there's another open ping here for you. :) —valereee (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, what are you referring to as the consensus? If it doesn't matter what our sources are using, what arguments are there that are specific to this article? TWM03 (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm referring to the fact FFF and I prefer to some degree B/w, while you prefer either B/W or b/w. It's a small consensus, but it's arguably consensus.

The argument I've made above that is specific to this article: that in writing this article, because it is about a racial topic, we need to be particularly sensitive to racial issues, that this concern trumps any concerns about consistency, and that B/w speaks to that concern. —valereee (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@TWM03 dammit lol —valereee (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe consensus is not decided by a majority, and the arguments also have to be taken into account. Can you explain why B/w is more sensitive to racial issues? As far as I can tell it just reflects some activists' POV. TWM03 (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@TWM03, yes, strength of policy-based arguments do need to be taken into account. Many RS are saying B/w is more sensitive, including in their explanation for why they're going to B/w; this is why I believe this is so. Many RS are rejecting White because of its history of association with white supremacy. Many of them have gone into lengthy explanations for why B/w while also publishing Op-Eds for opposing views.

The arguments you seem to be making are about desiring consistency and objecting to B/w as somehow an activist point of view? This exact issue is in policy, so here the consistency argument is not particularly strong. I'm not sure the WSJ and Christianity Today can be said to reflect an "activist point of view." :D —valereee (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, my use of the word "activist" is probably not entirely accurate, but the publications have political motives for capitalising one and not the other (basically to legitimise one identity over the other). Many people legitimately disagree with them, so it is a POV issue regardless of how POV are characterised. Applying the same standard to both is neutral, because it makes no statement about the legitimacy of different identities, rather placing grammar as the key factor. Views of what is more sensitive are subjective and not that important because Wikipedia values neutrality and objectivity over sensitivity. TWM03 (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@TWM03, I'm not sure we're going to convince one another. Right now we've got some consensus for B/w. If you'd like to try to gain greater consensus on that, you're welcome to, but for now we should tweak the article to reflect the consensus we do have. —valereee (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I share valereee's opinion that further discussion is unlikely to align our views. If you would like to know more about why I hold my view, or why I disagree with some of your points, I am happy to discuss further at either of our user talk pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, taking this to user talk is a good idea, as we've probably exhausted the discussion here, but I'd be happy for a ping if you do as I'm interested in your thinking. —valereee (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

References

'other criticisms' section

I think there's a place for criticism of using real people's names as a pejorative, but we need something besides blogs, interviews, opinion pieces, letters to the editor, original research. None of the sources were adequate, so I've removed this, but I have no objection to a section on this. —valereee (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the work being done here...

...to maintain the Whiteness of Karen. It is a very important distinction that must not be erased. Kingturtle = (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Misuse of Karen

While the term originally was used to illustrate white privileged women who created issues over a Black person being where her racism led her to believe they should not be, it is commonly now misused by toxic white males and their enablers as a "pejorative" term for basically any woman who complains about anything, no matter how valid her complaint may be. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/08/karen-meme-coronavirus/615355/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Housecat999 (talk • contribs)

Hey, Housecat999, yes, we include that article and information about the fact it's used as a general criticism for women. Did you think something else needed to be added? —valereee (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

While it is exclusively indicating a female, I see no reason why it only applies to White females. --105.12.0.72 (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The Karen slang may have originally been used as a racist slur specifically for white women by members of BLM with other BLM members. However the widespread and general popular slang use is not specific to the women's race. There are hundreds possibly thousands of videos online streaming all kinds of "Karens"and all of different "Karen freakouts" showing Women losing control over their emotions creating a socially unacceptable outburst verbally and/or physically during a confrontation with another person or multiple people. Karens are different races, different political parties, and fight for and also against both sides of all the current social issues including all different opinions of the issues created to deal the Covid-19 pandemic and other reasent issues that spark social conflict. DLogic75 (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Have you come across any sources that discuss this potential shift in the meaning or use of the term? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The Karen concept is racist as well

"The term has been criticized for being sexist, ageist, misogynistic and ..."

Should be:

"The term has been criticized for being sexist, ageist, misogynistic, racist and ..."

Because the first sentence is:

"... term for a white woman seeming ..."

Distinguishing by skin color is racist. A person of any skin color can be entitled/demanding of course. But if Karen has to be white, then the concept is racist. Of course this is so obvious that you might not even want to write it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.110.131.14 (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2021

In § Meaning and use, please change "speak with the manager" to "speak to the manager". Mainly, because this is about stereotypes, and the typical phrasing uses "to", as shown in the titles of the two refs and by this ngram. Also, the semantic difference, while slight, arguably matters on this occasion.

- 2A02:560:42C6:7D00:20C3:6325:CC63:922C (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

If there is no consensus against it, I would like to separate the use of karen as a term referring to white women and a term referring to women in general.

The know your meme page claims that karen can refer to any woman, but was used to specifically refer to racist white women during the 2020 blm protests. I think it would be useful to make a distinction between the two uses of the term. All that im proposing is to basically remove the "white" descriptor from the first sentence and simply leave it at woman. I know it may seem like a very small and somewhat petty change but I think specificity is important in these matters. Pizzaface99 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pizzaface99, I don't think that's a small or petty change at all. Do you have sources that support it being used to refer to anyone but white people? —valereee (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Why does that have to be sourced, it isn't exactly an academic term?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.12.0.72 (talk • contribs)

It has to be sourced because everything on Wikipedia needs to be sourced except for obvious things everyone agrees on, like that the sky is blue. —valereee (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

(I am nitpicking here, but the sky is not always and not everywhere blue. Not the best example.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.110.131.14 (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

That's the point, actually. When the sky isn't blue is the time we need to source that fact. When it is blue, we don't need to source. —valereee (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

theme restaurant

Hey, @Kzkzb, let's discuss. Why do you think this is important enough to include? It's a popup restaurant -- by definition, temporary -- with minimal local coverage. —valereee (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed previously, here's the archive: Talk:Karen_(slang)/Archive_1#Notable_examples —valereee (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not the same thing, though. The discussion you've linked is about mentioning individual instances of people being called "Karens". Since it's a commonly used term by now, of course we shouldn't mention every single time it is used; you've even mentioned the fact that the section was "going out of hand". We're talking about a single theme restaurant though. It is relevant to the topic of the article, and it helps establish the fact that the usage of "Karen" is not restricted to the Internet. But this is not a hill I'm willing to die on, if you think the article is not improved by including this sentence, you can remove it. --Kzkzb (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think as it's a popup restaurant, it's inherently not worth including without multiple mentions somewhere. —valereee (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Though the archived discussion valereee linked to didn't exactly match this situation, my reasoning for exclusion is that same here: our goal should be to include notable (in the common non-Wikipedia-jargon sense) examples that help the reader understand the concept. Firefangledfeathers 16:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Karen originated with Black women?

Where is the source that proves the term Karen originated with Black women. The oldest examples listed are Hollywood and memes. A few articles make claims about the origin, but they provide no proof. Seems like sources aren't the most important on this page. Ruffigy (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ruffigy, the sources would be in the paragraphs about origins. I'm not sure what proof you're asking for beyond what is already being provided? —valereee (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

That is my point. The articles referenced make claims to origins with zero proof or examples. I read the articles listed They read like opinion pieces that were wrote within the last year as a response to the term being co-opted from its original meaning. An actual meme or usage of the term is proof. Someone claiming they said it first, is not proof. Ruffigy (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ruffigy, Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. We don't do research to prove that something is "true" or not. If something is opinion or theory that needs to be attributed, we attribute it. We've attributed these statements to specific scholars. —valereee (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Why no reference to the 1990 film Goodfellas, Karen is clearly based on this character

I don't see anywhere any viable reference to karen behavior prior to this movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plRa2kz9k1c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.132.206.250 (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That appears to be retrospective. I have not seen anything in reliable sources that mentions Goodfellas. —valereee (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

misogynistic vs sexist

@Comradeka, it may be your opinion that one of these words fully encompasses the other, but reliable sources are using both, so we should be reporting both. —valereee (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

But that's rather silly. No? If one source reports someone owns a dog, and another specifies they own a chihuahua, surely we wouldnt put in a Wikipedia article they own a dog and a chihuahua! Such logic should apply to this as well, and any other time where some sources use a broader umbrella term and others use a more specific term that falls under that umbrella term. Comradeka (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that either of these is contained fully in the other. Which are you thinking is the one that includes the other completely? —valereee (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's a source saying they're different: "What we get wrong about misogyny". —valereee (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a random Vox article where two people talk about a completely made up distinction. According to Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/misogyny), Misogyny is a "form of sexist ideoloy." Comradeka (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Comradeka, I'm not sure what you object to in a "random Vox article". Vox is considered generally reliable. Britannica isn't saying misogyny is a synonym for sexism. It's saying it's a form of sexism, which means there are other forms of sexist ideology and other types of sexism which aren't necessary ideological. I get that you don't like it, but both words are being used in sources, which is why we use both words in the article. —valereee (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not a question of synonyms. Yes, misogyny is a form of sexism. They are not entirely synonymous. But, again, "Chihuahua" has a different definition from dog, yet if one source describes someone as having a chihuahua, and another simply says they have a dog, we would only include on in the Wikipedia article. If something is a form of something else, it's redundant to include both of those things. If you eat a sandwich, it is both accurate to say "you are eating food" and "you are eating a sandwich", but it would certainly be strange to say "you are eating food and a sandwich". Does this mean "sandwich" is a synonym for "food"? Of course not. This is how umbrella terms work. Comradeka (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And which is the umbrella term? I'm arguing we've got a venn diagram here. When you respond on a talk page, add one extra colon to correctly indent. I'm going to fix that now so you'll see what I mean. —valereee (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It's obviously racist.

Since we all know it really refers exclusively to white women, it is racist and offensive. There are other races and women that reflect the same attitude. Respectfully, consider the notion of whites deciding to call the black female equivalent "Shanequa," or the Hispanic equivalent "Consuelo." did it sound racist now? 172.58.70.222 (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You know the drill. What are the sources that consider it racist? We can't use our own opinions as sources. Dimadick (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

What makes you think they know the drill? It's an IP with two edits. valereee (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Synth or not synth?

Would it be synthetic to mention in the racism section that the term is (at the very least not always) used in a racist way because oftentimes white people use it to describe other whites, and it can be used to describe anyone who is seen as entitled/obnoxious, regardless of race or sex? I'd say there are plenty of sources to make that clear, but only insomuch as the sources show the fact (e.g. Elon Musk being called a 'Space Karen'), rather than the sources stating the fact. I'm hovering between yes and no on whether that constitutes synth in this case, so I thought I'd ask talk. What do you think talk? Synth or not? Joe (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@JoePhin, I think you'd need to explain exactly what you wanted to write and give the sources for it. Otherwise we can't know whether this is synth or not. valereee (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Plural for Karen - Suggestion

I suggest the following for adding plural for Karen and group of Karens: Luncheon of Karens. 2600:1008:B100:4CA8:2095:3A54:A4EF:1432 (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

perhaps the photo is inappropriate

Looks like the photo was taken from a public creative commons source that is unrelated to wikipedia, it's a hair stylist's customer. maybe this person doesn't want to be the world's reference image for a derogatory term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.88.170 (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Caren Turner

How could this article not make reference to Caren Turner? She has her own Wikipedia page as a result of her infamous tirade in 2017 that was captured by the police camera in their cruiser. I was sure she must have been the origin of the term, after watching the video today for the first time. Or at least be mentioned in the article, considering her name! All the best. Kevin McInroy 71.114.70.214 (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Added per it being a notable example with its own article. Valereee (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Sexist and racist.

The entire vernacular of this article defends a racist remark. 209.50.148.116 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Don’t agree with you there. But either way, Wikipedia is a place where facts, such as pop culture references, are defined. Racist, sexist, whatever it may be, it is a cultural phenomenon and used by many people. This page just defines it in a neutral point of view. Smurr7 (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Only one cite as a source, and an opinion piece no less, is a bit thin for a citeworthy definition. Herzmut (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Re-order some sections/subsections

I renamed the "Criticism" section as "Anti-woman" (which is its core topic), and then made it a sub-section with the other "Racism" subsection under a new "Criticism" section. I think both of these subsections fit together under this section heading (ie they are two different aspects of criticism of the term). 78.18.239.117 (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The term "anti-woman" is probably a rationale used by Karens. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

No, because the "Racism" section mostly isn't criticism. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2022

Rewrite this in factual terms while leaving out suggestive racial slurs and oponion 47.218.33.43 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not the true definition. Please make changes or public edits available. Arob143 (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Be specific. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

Change white privilage to "so-called white privilage." Reason: the expression white privilage is not founded in any source data or scientific research and therefore should be considered hearsay, or disputeable. Hankstone1 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: take a gander at the sources on White privilege Cannolis (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2022

i want to change the term `white women can only be karens` to everyone can be a karen no matter the races or gender. Olivia.hartley (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The short editing history of the OP suggests mere trolling.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Women named Karen suffering from this sexist and ageist meme.

wp:deny
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Karen is not just an insult, it is first and foremost a name for millions of women and girls. The name has become a synonym for everything evil and has caused bullying and attacks on innocent women and girls who were named Karen at birth. There are better ways to fight racism than by using a person's name, and by encouraging sexism and ageism, with a slur that has caused many women to stop speaking out regarding even the most legitimate injustices. 2601:6C3:C100:CA50:55E1:F5F8:5560:3454 (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Says who? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2023

The term ,,karen" is used as a reference for both white and black women. 79.119.156.248 (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lemonaka (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Other such references (male)

These are 'confirmed' examples (first words that comes to mind) :

Bret - Actual video of a 'child' (~1 minute long) and audience in an uproar chanting 'we want Bret'

Brad (?) typically interjected in the audio of a video.

Are there wikipedia articles for these two? 96.252.76.112 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

In what context? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

'Karen'

Gotta congratulate Wikipedia for proving itself to be the most racially stereotypical reference source I've seen recently yet.

Looked up this as was not sure of the term's meaning but knew it was derogatory slang and was surprised to find you're definition included a woman using her 'while privelrdge'. Congratulations again but reckon you should forget the racial stereotyping as not every white woman is 'racially priveledged' and not every coloured woman is racially underprivileged so reckon you need to lose the virtue signalling racism yourselves or list yourselves down as an example of virtue signalling, bigotry, racism, and any amount of other terms applicable to an 'obvious' rather than 'percieved' racially biggored publicly abailable reference 27.32.186.42 (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Go tell it to the sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Marjorie Taylor Greene the ultimate Karen?

Editorial
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would stand to argue that Marjorie Taylor Green is, without a doubt, the ultimate incarnation of the slang term 'Karen.' And mind you, I do feel bad for all the kind, nice women out there named Karen, that have been bestowed with a bad wrap. But there is one woman, that deserves the title. This beast that takes no prisoners. When she wakes up in the morning, she brews her coffee with the ground up remains of the Bill of Rights and a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation, drinks it, and chews her glass coffee mug until all that is left is sand ground up in her pointy teeth. She then walks out her front door, every day, looking for a pound of flesh to take as her prize. Like a wolf in winter, spotting a lame calf trailing the herd. Not only does she define the term Karen, but she embodies every sense of the term. Every possible ounce of sanity, empathy, understanding, or compassion is lost in the primal blood lust that is Marjorie Taylor Green's psyche. She doesn't just want to "speak to the manager." She would find more satisfaction with a hatchet and a pike. 2600:1700:F0:A50:4078:19D7:8DA5:5C68 (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Black women included as "karens" as well?

Are black women included as being "karens" as well? Many black women behave the same way as white women who are called "karens". 104.235.135.205 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Where have you seen non-white women (other than maybe wealthy entertainers) who act "entitled"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of videos on YT channels & subreddits dedicated solely to exposing Karens, and they show a variety of entitled people of all races.

Some of the most notorious Karens include Asian, Hispanic, and black people.

They're not always women, either; Michael Barajas is a Mexican-American who falls under the Karen umbrella.

2600:4040:750C:6F00:7CA8:F9B2:B0FD:E579 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a racially based term and therefore should be termed as racist

Trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Title. Just because it's directed at white people doesn't somehow make it not a racial slur, unless you're of the racist left ilk that think it impossible to be racist to white people. 198.200.215.5 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Also I imagine you admins locked the page so no one can say this is a racist term right because I know you guys are a bunch of extremists politically 198.200.215.5 (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Find a source to support your argument. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2023

Capitalize "White" 2601:249:1500:5810:1A91:7FCA:3064:5D36 (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Meaning

It's being used increasingly on social media to generally refer to any woman, of any race, who is excessively angry/confrontational or crazy. In fact it's increasingly being used to describe a crazy, unhinged woman. I'm not sure why colour of skin is mentioned at all. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Because RS mention it. If you have RS that are saying the meaning of the term is evolving, by all means spit 'em out. Valereee (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: OP has a point. The idea seems to stem mostly from the clear link between Karen behaviour (entitled, antagonistic) and racism. Sourcing is a bit difficult because articles tend to focus on the racist aspect of Karen behaviour, but this is an example. Ironically, exclusively using it for white women seems to have since become a talking point for those who claim the term is racist (e.g. this one). Popular usage has long included, to a certain extent, people of any race. The lead already points out that Karens can be male too, so pointing out out that there have been a number of non-white Karens shouldn't be too much of a problem. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde, both of those sources are opinion pieces, which would mean we'd need to quote and attribute. I see the Junkee source says "truly anyone can be a Karen, not just middle-aged white women determined to speak to the manager". But is there a reason we care what Michelle Rennex thinks? The National Review piece is by Wilfred Reilly so we do care what he thinks, but he says "Some of the “Karen” noise strikes me as sexism — today, I notice that you can say almost any damned thing about women if you add a short modifier like “white” or “cis” — and some of it as racism, but none of it as good." It's a brand-new piece, so we could use it to update because he's saying "today". What edit would you suggest? Valereee (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: I propose an adjustment along the following lines:

The term has been considered pejorative by those who believe it is sexist, ageist, classist, and controlling women's behavior. This characterization itself has been criticized. The term has also been applied to male behavior.

to

The term has been considered pejorative by those who believe it is sexist, ageist, classist, and controlling women's behavior. This characterization itself has been criticized. The term has occasionally been applied to women of other races, as well as to some male behavior.

Funnily enough it didn't occur to me that that National Enquirer article supports the point. It's still focused on the racial nature of the term, but they do indeed imply in that quote (if I understand them correctly) that the term has shifted towards "hiding behind claims of racism". I'm still not sure if it can really be called a shift in perceptions though. I missed it the first time, but the Atlantic article from 2020 cited in the lead says: "Does the word describe a particular type of behavior that resonates because of the particular racial history of the United States? Yes. Is that the only way it is used? No." More explicitly, it points out that non-Americans may associate it less with race than Americans do: "At some point, though, the particular American history behind Karen got lost. What started as an indictment of racial privilege has become divorced from its original context, and is now a catchall term for shaming women online." This could explain much of the confusion. Anyway, I admit this is still lacking the sources with deeper analysis needed for more depth but I think there's enough to at least warrant the change above. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde, we'd need a source for it being applied to women of other races -- the National Review piece doesn't say that, I don't think? And the Atlantic source doesn't either? -- and it would need to go into the body section first, at minimum. Only the most important bits from the body go into the lead. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Potentially racist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Limiting it only to “white women” is racist. Social status and economic security can also be a contributing factor which is available to all races. 96.93.22.53 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources say otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

For a slang term, how can sources be reliable? These people who make these "sources" do not understand slang. Karens are definitely more than just white women using white privilege. The actual definition that is generally accepted is for any woman using her female privilege, not her racial privilege. Even the terms "Darren" and "Kevin" are used for male equivalents. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

When have you ever seen a non-white woman being called a "Karen"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

[2] SuperKaren doesn't appear to be white in this one. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Not very Karen-like, just resisting arrest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That is LITERALLY what Karens do. It is a video of a Karen on the channel Karens in the Wild. There's no one who does it better. You also can't get any more Karen than this. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure you can. A white woman calling the cops on a non-white for doing nothing in particular is the "Karen" archetype. This alleged example ain't it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a completely personal interpretation based on only one archetypical example. Edit: (prev part was on phone) To specify, I don't think there's a consensus in the sources that a "Karen" can only be white, there's just a clear correlation observed between famous examples of Karens and (true or not) stereotypes of middle-aged white women. A person who is not of that archetype but who fits the "feel" and behaviour of a Karen will still be called one. We need to be careful with relying on surface-level evaluations of a complex neologism. Prinsgezinde (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't write the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not "potentially racist" it IS racist. I am a white woman (or Anglo, or Caucasian or whatever other classification you want to use) and have been called a "Karen" by Latino people who have decided to use the word as a racial epithet when lashing out. Their intent was obvious. It was directed at me in rage b/c I am a white woman and I told them to turn the music down that they were blasting all over the neighborhood late at night on a weekday. The idea that this word is not racist is complete bullshit. You only have to be called a Karen by someone who's not white (or not Anglo or not Caucasian), and feel the force of the contempt behind it to know it IS a racial epithet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.92.123 (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You sound just like a Karen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Karen origin year

The article states it caught on towards the end of 2018 but I found somebody using it in the comments of this news article from 2015 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3032774/Sopranos-star-Lorraine-Bracco-reveals-death-star-James-Gandolfini-parents-health-struggles-prompted-35lb-weight-loss.html#comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.235.76 (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The comment reads only "KAREN! Why did you do that Karen!?!?". No indication what it means in this context. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Black vs black again

Hey, @FMSky, w/re this, the previous discussions are in the archives. Valereee (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the last discussion was this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Inverted bob?

The association of an "inverted bob" with so-called "Karens" is weird enough, but including a picture of an inverted bob as the top and only illustration is outright offensive. The picture should be removed. Zaslav (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The alleged "source" for it does not mention it, so I've deleted the picture. Looks like it had been added in Feb 2022.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that the term derived (or at least partially dreived) from a type of bob haircut known as "the Karen" (examples per here, and here). I think the "Origin" section needs to be updated for this. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the illustration somehow implies that's what "a Karen" typically looks like, which is not particularly the case. Plus, the sourcing for it was invalid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's what EO has to say about it.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think the "Origin" section is as yet tightly written. UNDUE is given to one magazine's statement on its origin (which your source disputes), and no mention is made of the known associations with the hairstyle. It is certainly a very notable term, no question. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Mayella Ewell Syndrome

White women have been both the oppressed and the oppressor. This has been for eons and may continue until the end of time. America’s history has a foundation of this paradox that keeps evolving even in this time of wide social consciousness. White women have been put in an awkward position, but they are by no means neutral. Hence, we shall discuss the Mayella Ewell Syndrome.

  Mayella Ewell is a character in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. Mayella is a White woman who is being abused by her father. When she is alone, she tries to seduce a Black man named Tom Robinson, but he refuses her advances. One day, her father catches her and she accuses Tom of rape. Tom is then put on trial where he is declared guilty. His innocence is overlooked by his black skin and this White woman’s privilege.

  Too often this is revealed in America’s sordid past. Too often it still occurs. When a White woman is being oppressed, but she falsely accuses people of color as her oppressors or enemies, she has the Mayella Ewell Syndrome. This unfortunate dilemma allows the White woman to be pathological in her deceptions. She may even begin to believe it is true. She becomes delusional deluding anyone who would question her credibility.

Malika Davis (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

What valid sources have postulated this theory? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Probability of the term's earlier origin

If I were impartial, I would readily lend credence to the theory that the early origin of the term might derive from the character named Karen on the TV show "Will & Grace" starting in 1998. She was definitely privileged and controlling, maybe overbearing and/or manipulative (and rich). But I am all too timid to modify the article proper without more contributors onboard. What say you folks? ETP (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

i thought that was the origin as well, notice the term really took off around the time they rebooted the show. Of course you'd need a source to add it to the article.Gjxj (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Rick Santorum's wife Karen ?

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Carolyn Bryant

Her line needs to be rephrased. I read the entire Wikipedia page for Emmett Till. As far as the information says, she did not accuse him of anything resulting in his death. She did not even tell anyone about the encounter until after his death when she was made to answer by legal authorities. Her husband found out about Emmett from other people at the store, and he got mad at her for not telling him. The FBI interrogated her as to why she did not tell anyone. The husband was responsible for Emmett's death because HE felt offended on behalf his wife who he saw as belonging to him. SHE did not. According to Wikipedia and external resources: "Historian Timothy Tyson said an investigation by civil rights activists concluded Carolyn Bryant did not initially tell her husband Roy Bryant about the encounter with Till, and that Roy was told by a person who frequented their store. Roy was reportedly angry at his wife for not telling him. Carolyn Bryant told the FBI she did not tell her husband because she feared he would assault Till." As it stands, the Karen (slang) page is inaccurate. This page says she accused him because she was offended, when the FBI and civil rights activists state it was the husband who was offended and HIS offense led to Emmett being brutally murdered. This page needs to be written more objectively. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Then add it Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Head's) (Goo Goo Dolls) 16:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

typo: chashier

please fix if you have edit access. Hannah1981 (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers thx! Hannah1981 (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)