Open main menu

Contents

SourcesEdit

This is an interesting social phenomenon that is occurring in subsets of society today and this article could certainly use some more detail and references/sources. Clarebrady (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I just added some content to ensure that the article is unbiased and more in-depth. Clarebrady (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposalEdit

I propose to merge cancel culture into call-out culture/outrage culture. Both of these terms are clearly related. While I agree that they describe different phenomenon, they are interrelated and often "calling out" (and being "outraged") leads to "canceling". Cancel culture is a newer term than call-out culture, though both have been around a while. Because of that, and the fact that the "call-out"/"outrage" often precedes "cancel", I think the content in both articles should be merged into call-out culture.

Pinging the top 10 contributers (excluding myself) between both articles: DeRossitt Koyyo Equinox Shintaraguru Daniel Case Clarebrady Netoholic TheUnbeholden HenryBarnill Pokerplayer513. - PaulT+/C 02:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. Closely related, sure, but not seeing a lot of reliable sources that relate/equate the two. -- Netoholic @ 02:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    Fair point, but compare the definitions for both terms:
    "social phenomenon of publicly denouncing perceived racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, national interest, and other forms of bigotry" vs
    "no longer morally, financially, and/or digitally supporting people—usually celebrities—or things that have been deemed unacceptable or problematic"
    The public denouncing *is* the cancelling. The more that I think about it, cancel culture is very much a subset of call-out culture. The examples of the former from the article are universally examples of the latter as well. (I also added them to the call-out culture article because they fit so well.) We'll have to see what others think. - PaulT+/C 03:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    I don't necessarily think the opening lines are very good. But in either case, our interpretation of their relative overlap doesn't matter. Sources don't seem to equate the topic. So I'll ask you to please stop merging the articles and conflating them at least until we get more input. -- Netoholic @ 03:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    You beat me to the revert... I'm fine with leaving it as-is while the discussion unfolds.
    Is there an example of cancelling that wouldn't apply to outrage/calling out? - PaulT+/C 03:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, there are call-outs that don't involve calling for cancellation (of a book, movie, etc)...such as when there is a call for a change (e.g., the DVD cover for the film Pride (2014 film) was allegedly straightwashed by having LGBT slogans airbrushed out. I assume putting back the LGBT slogans on the DVD cover would be a satisfactory resolution to this concern.)OnBeyondZebraxTALK 23:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    I may have been less clear than I intended. You are describing the reverse of what I mean. You are saying you can have a "call-out" without a "cancel", I agree and am not disputing that point. The point I'm trying to make is that you cannot have a "cancel" without a "call-out" first and therefore having a separate cancel article doesn't make much sense if it is impossible to cancel without first being called out/outraged. To put it another way, "cancel" is a subset of "call-out" and therefore the former ("cancel") should be a subsection of the latter ("call-out"). Otherwise, you end up having to describe "call-out" in two places with seemingly no benefit and arguably the downside of having to maintain two separate articles about the same general concept. - PaulT+/C 04:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure. I suppose it is essentially a consequence of call-out culture. Although it seems the term has become just as commonly used as "call-out culture" and "outrage culture", but isn't interchangeable as those two are. It's a separate thing that has emerged in the last year and has been dominating current culture with things like Leaving Neverland and Surviving R. Kelly, both of which are seemingly targeted at the public to "cancel" these celebrities rather than to merely call them out. Although, again, I'm not sure since in many recent articles I have read it seems the lines between the two have been blurred, wherin the act of calling out simultaneously demands cancelling. But, again, they still aren't interchangeable and merging the article as a redirect seems like an inevitably sloppy solution. Koyyo (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment They seem to be closely related. The way columnists like David Brooks (NYT) are describing it, when a person does a call-out, it is to denounce the allegedly offensive person, thereby causing the reduction of their support online...so they seem like steps a) and b) in social media denunciation. But not sure if we can have one article, as not every call-out is calling for cancellation. Some call-outs call for the person to educate themselves.OnBeyondZebraxTALK 23:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    That sounds like an argument to support the merge to me. You can easily have a single article describing the various results of a "call-out" - inclusive of "cancel" and other possibilities. Having two separate articles would require unnecessary redundancy and could lead to confusion. - PaulT+/C 04:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. These are almost identical concepts. Popcornduff (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. DeRossitt (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Sourcerery (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Any additional thoughts, OnBeyondZebrax, Koyyo, or Netoholic? It looks like there is pretty widespread support for this merge. - PaulT+/C 04:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Hmm... it seems Koyyo was blocked for being a sockpuppet... They were also the creator of cancel culture. However, I don't think that changes anything one way or the other. - PaulT+/C 04:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, its a terrible idea. cancel culture is simply a modern form of a boycott. That's the better merge target. Merging here conflates this topic. "Calling out" does not always result in a "cancel". -- Netoholic @ 04:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    No one has asserted that every call-out results in a cancel, but the reverse is true (at least as far as I have seen). I have not seen one example of a cancelling that was not preceded by a call out. That is why call-out is the better target, it is (if ever so slightly) broader (and therefore "cancel" can neatly fit as a subsection in the parent "call-out" article). - PaulT+/C 05:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    Every serving of tea goes into a teacup, that doesn't mean we merge the articles. -- Netoholic @ 08:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    Are you really arguing tea is to teacup as cancel culture is to call-out culture (tea:teacup::cancel culture:call-out culture)? You know that is a ridiculous comparison. Even so, if the content in "tea" were substantially similar and repetitive to the content in "teacup" (based on the available sources), then you better believe there would be efforts to merge both articles into "teacup". You can plainly see this through the concurrences with my argument from Popcornduff, Ilovetopaint, DeRossitt, and Sourcerery in the above discussion. Furthermore, you can easily articulate the differences and limits to "tea" vs "teacup". Plainly, "tea" is not a subset of "teacup" and nor is the converse true. Whereas "cancel culture" is wholly subsumed into "call-out culture". If one were to make a Venn diagram for the terms, the circle for "cancel culture" would be completely inside the "call-out culture" circle. - PaulT+/C 17:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    Having looked online for sources on both articles, it seems that there is not enough depth of content to justify two separate articles. The modest amount of coverage of cancellation culture means that this could be explained within the call-out culture article. A further demonstration of the close links between the concepts is that some sources refer to both concepts within a single sentence.OnBeyondZebraxTALK 22:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    WP:MERGEREASON gives the WP rules/recommendations on good reasons to merge pages, which are: duplication (2 articles are exactly the same subject), overlap, shortness (the 2 articles are both short), and the need for context (that merging with provide). The context rationale is used when you will understand the article better if it is merged into a "parent" article. There are some "don't merge" rules, too, which are if the merge will make the new article too long or clunky; if the 2 articles have potential for expansion as separate articles; and if the topics are discrete. It seems there is overlap and need for context (plus a bit of duplication).OnBeyondZebraxTALK 23:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support.OnBeyondZebraxTALK 22:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Not voting because I'm not a regular Wikipedian (beyond spelling/grammar corrections) but I would not object to this merge as long as "cancel culture" is still mentioned and defined. It probably isn't important enough to need its own page. Equinox 03:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support All three should be defined clearly though. There seems to be a pretty clear consensus here that "cancel" cannot exist without either the "outrage" or the "call-out", they are part of the one cultural phenomenon. This discussion has been open for more than 30 days now, so I'm gonna go ahead and merge the pages. Bacondrum (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Origins/historyEdit

This could be a good header for a title if the article isn't merged. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:9D62:4D85:AD95:1CAB (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Expansion of "Examples" SectionEdit

Proposition to expand section titled "Examples". Looking to provide more real-world application of "Call-out" culture (eg) Kyler Murray tweets, recent Joe Biden allegations, James Gunn & Disney, etc These examples and continued scholarly contribution may provide additional context to readers Btorszag (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Links to proposed additions Biden https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-accused-of-inappropriate-physical-contact-by-multiple-women-says-he-will-change-his-behavior/2019/04/03/05b5ea58-5643-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html?utm_term=.ba3e987ace22 Gunn https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/15/disney-reinstated-director-james-gunn-for-guardians-of-the-galaxy-3.html Murray https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/09/us/kyler-murray-tweets-apology/index.html Btorszag (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


I've added a note to that section and removed some "examples". Any examples we use must be referred in their sources as examples of "call-out culture" or "cancel culture". They can't be just what we think are examples, because that is WP:Original research. Also, these are "examples" - we don't need every single one. Pick a few, and make sure they are very high quality - the more sources that cite them as call-out/cancel examples, the better - and remove any lesser-quality ones. -- Netoholic @ 21:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The source for Black Mirror specifically mentions outrage as in outrage culture, which is synonymous and so I've added that example back. There are a number of examples currently present at cancel culture that will also be merged into this article as well. You might want to look there to see how much larger an example section can (and maybe should) be. The examples should show how vindictive the outrage is, how it can be applied in both small and large instances, and how it can be directed inappropriately to parties where it is not warranted. The examples should show the "good" as well as the "bad". - PaulT+/C 09:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
No, it mentions "online outrage". A singular example of outrage does not equate to it being a clear example of "outrage culture". Examples are fine, but they need to be clearly relevant to the main topic (to the casual reader) and high-quality. -- Netoholic @ 11:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Are you really arguing that "People have a frightening tendency to mercilessly pile on with online outrage when somebody does something unpopular" from [1] doesn't refer to "outrage culture"? What else would "mercilessly pile on with online outrage" be? This is not WP:SYNTH. See WP:SYNNOT, specifically:
WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH: SYNTH is not just any synthesis: ... Some old versions of NOR even said "Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source ..."[2] (emphasis added).,
SYNTH is not primarily point-by-point: ... Very old versions of NOR focused on crackpot theories being published whole, not on single statements within the exposition of a body of well-established fact. The under-the-microscope level of scrutiny often practiced now, which demands removal of a single clause until a source can be found that presents the material the same way, is more a result of creep than of well-thought-out policy.,
SYNTH is not unpublishably unoriginal: When you look at a case of putative SYNTH, apply the following test. Suppose you took this claim to a journal that does publish original research. Would they (A) vet your article for correctness, documentation, and style, and publish it if it met their standards in those areas? Or would they (B) laugh in your face because your "original research" is utterly devoid of both originality and research, having been common knowledge in the field since ten years before you were born? If you chose (B), it's not original research -- even if it violates the letter of WP:SYNTH.,
and most broadly SYNTH is not a rigid rule: Wikipedia doesn't have them, supposedly. But if a policy gets enforced zealously, it can be hard to tell the difference. The solution is to not enforce policies zealously. Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article..
Also, per WP:BRD, you are contesting material (the Black Mirror example) that has been present in the article for quite some time and your changes/removals are being challenged. So, until consensus is formed here, the version with the material you are trying to remove should stay in the article as explained at WP:STATUSQUO. - PaulT+/C 17:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Also also, you are getting close to violating WP:3RR: 22:38, 13 April 2019 04:35, 14 April 2019 12:10, 14 April 2019. Please come to consensus here before reverting again. - PaulT+/C 17:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I said nothing at all about WP:SYNTH, so this whole diatribe is pointless. Unless a source describes an event as an example of "call-out culture", we can't say it is. That is WP:OR and fails WP:Verifiability. Amazing that you think to try to call me out for reverts close to 3rr, when you've done the same number of reverts despite being asked to WP:BRD, are engaging in WP:OR as I say above, are using misleading edit summaries, and overall have been displaying wP:OWNership-like behavior over this article. -- Netoholic @ 21:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
If not WP:SYNTH, then what exactly are you citing at WP:OR? There is nothing original in the current statement about that episode being an example of the phenomenon as explicitly stated by the writer/creator Charlie Booker. The question posed to him at [3] is "People have a frightening tendency to mercilessly pile on with online outrage when somebody does something unpopular" and his response is "Pretty much. It was something I observed, and it's easy to caught up in yourself. There are times I've joined in the pile-on, it’s thrilling in some way." - directly verifiable. The word "culture" is a description of the phenomenon as a way to directly label it. Just because an example doesn't use that exact phrasing doesn't mean it isn't about the exact same topic. Asserting that is not "original research" nor is it "synthesis" that goes against the spirit of the guideline.
You may want to read WP:BRD a little more closely. Your removal of the Black Mirror content is what is being reverted and contested as the "R" in BRD. - PaulT+/C 22:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Psantora: The OR is that you have to stretch the interpretation so far to make it fit with the topic of this article, rather than finding better examples. Frankly, if there is even a debate as to interpretation, then the example is clearly not high quality and should be removed/replaced with something that is more clear. I find the Clinton and Neeson items adequate at least until other high quality and clear examples are found. That you claim to be for BRD is a bit late to the game, as that was exactly my directive to you, but you have reverted TWICE since then. In your two latest reverts you reinserted additional (extraneous) material related to Neeson, an item which you added very recently (failing your own call to BRD), and failed to mention Neeson in your edit summaries. I direct you to self-revert until we can get more outside views - only the Clinton and (shortened) Neeson are necessary for now. -- Netoholic @ 22:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Nothing is being stretched from the source. It is an example of the phenomenon. You are just asserting that in your opinion this is not the case. That is not what the source says. They directly reference "People have a frightening tendency to mercilessly pile on with online outrage when somebody does something unpopular", which is exactly what this article is about. You have not shown anything to contradict that other than your opinion, which is irrelevant (as is mine).
Regarding BRD, yes there was other content that you removed that was more recently added, but that doesn't change the fact that your first removal of content to the page was the "bold" edit because it also removed longstanding (ish, at least 2 weeks) content that had not been disputed before - the Black Mirror bullet. To be clear, I have not fully reverted your changes. You removed two other examples about Biden and Gunn, which were added by a student trying to complete a task for a course, that I agree are not sufficently supported by the sources to be included here.
Regarding the Neeson content, each sentence is directly sourced and gives very topical examples of the calling-out, the attempt to censure/cancel, and why the negative reaction to his statements was potentially unfounded. All sourced, all directly relevant as examples of the phenomenon and the potential consequences of it for both the people being called out and the ones who are outraged. I'm happy to discuss that in detail here, but if you are just going to dismiss arguments without directly addressing them as you have with the Black Mirror content we aren't going to have a very productive discussion.
I'm happy to hear from other editors about this dispute and I'm 100% open to other views on this. In the interests of having that productive discussion, (and despite my inclination) I will self-revert the addition of the Neeson example that you are disputing so we can discuss that example in a separate section below, however, the Black Mirror content should stand until consensus determines otherwise. - PaulT+/C 22:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Neeson example discussionEdit

There is a disupute as to how elaborate the example about Liam Neeson's comments should be in the article. The version I prefer is below:

The more condense version preferred by Netoholic is:

  • Liam Neeson faced calls for the cancellation of Cold Pursuit, a then-newly-produced movie, after he said in an interview with The Independent that he once "roamed the streets of Northern Ireland for a week looking for a random black man to kill after his friend told him that she was raped by a black man."[1][3]

I contend that the more elaborate version is appropriate for the article because it gives several types of examples of calling out and the consequences to calling out, as discussed earlier in the article.

The first sentence is largely identical between the two versions so I will not expound on it here other than to say that it does show the basic example of the situation, albeit with a reference[2] removed.

The next sentence: The film's red carpet premiere was cancelled because of the controversy.[4][5] shows a direct example of a consequence of the calling-out (also known as cancelling) and is therefore directly relevant.

The next sentence: In an appearance on Good Morning America, Neeson elaborated on his experience while denying being a racist.[6][7] shows Neeson's reaction to the call-out and how he might be misunderstood by the blind outrage being expressed by the public, again directly relevant to similar points earlier in the article.

The final two sentences: Trevor Noah defended Neeson, saying, "I want to live in a world where a person who said something like that is ashamed of it and they are telling it to you and you aren't catching them out", and that it was a "powerful admission".[8] Michelle Rodriguez,[8] Whoopi Goldberg,[9] and Ralph Fiennes[10] have also defended Neeson. show how others are coming to Neeson's defense again as an example of how there was an overreaction in this case. Again, explicitly examples of points raised earlier in the article.

I'm interested to hear what others think about which version is a better way to show examples of the call-out/outrage/cancel phenomenon. - PaulT+/C 23:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Joda, Joshua (15 February 2019). "How 'Cancel Culture' Risks Eliminating Nuance From Public Conversation". HuffPost. Verizon Media. Retrieved 16 March 2019.
  2. ^ a b Michallon, Clémence (4 February 2019). "Liam Neeson: 'I walked the streets with a cosh, hoping I'd be approached by a "black bastard" so that I could kill him'". The Independent. Retrieved 4 February 2019.
  3. ^ a b Michallon, Clémence. "Liam Neeson interview: Rape, race and how I learnt revenge doesn't work". The Independent. Retrieved 5 February 2019. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "IndependentRevenge" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b "Liam Neeson's 'Cold Pursuit' red carpet canceled after he reveals racist revenge story". USA Today. 5 February 2019. Retrieved 6 February 2019.
  5. ^ a b "Red carpet nixed after Liam Neeson reveals racist thoughts". Associated Press. Retrieved 6 February 2019.
  6. ^ a b Blistein, Jon. "Liam Neeson Talks Racist Revenge Fantasy on 'Good Morning America'". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 6 February 2019.
  7. ^ a b Sherpard, Jack. "Liam Neeson interview: Actor denies being racist after admitting wanting to kill a black man". The Independent. Retrieved 6 February 2019.
  8. ^ a b c d https://people.com/movies/michelle-rodriguez-defends-liam-neeson-shocking-comments-wanting-kill-black-man/
  9. ^ a b https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/06/whoopi-goldberg-defends-friend-liam-neeson-insists-not-bigot/
  10. ^ a b https://www.irishpost.com/news/ralph-fiennes-defends-liam-neeson-164957
Since there hasn't been any discussion for weeks, I'm going to take the WP:SILENCE as weak consensus and add the extended Neeson example back. - PaulT+/C 15:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note, the addition was reverted without any discussion here. In addition, that revert also removed additional content being discussed in the above section. Again, without any discussion here. I have reverted the article to the version before I added back the Neeson content. It would be best if all concerned editors would come to the talk page to discuss concerns rather than blindly reverting changes they personally disagree with. - PaulT+/C 17:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Segments in the Reception SectionEdit

Seeing as the reception section (in its current state) is just a collection of article support by different authors, would we want to consider separating that into "positive" and "critical" reception? It could help future Wikipedia authors with mapping where their contributions might fit best (assuming they are adding more journal or news article support) Btorszag (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I deleted all of that section, it's like an endless newsfeed of opinion, many by people with no particular expertise in any related field. This page should describe the phenomena and read like an encyclopedic entry, not list its detractors and supporters and their opinions. Bacondrum (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe a summary of the key points from the Reception section should be put back, using only the most reliable sources, having minimal quotes, and respecting WP:UNDUE. This is an article about a social media phenomenon, so it seems that the views of reliable sources on this phenomenon would help the reader. Bacondrum mentioned "undue" in the edit summary where the section was removed, which I assume to be a reference to WP:UNDUE, the policy on undue weight. The policy says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". The policy appears to support having the views of the most reliable sources (e.g., Jonathan Haidt, David Brooks) in the article. I believe we should add the reliably sourced content back to the article. Bacondrum said in an edit summary that some of the sources that were deleted were not "notable". The WP:Notability policy is about whether there should be an article on a person or concept. There is no requirement that a source be herself or himself notable under WP guidelines.OnBeyondZebraxTALK 15:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I strongly disagree - pages have a reception section for subjects like films, books, speeches etc, but generally not cultural phenomena...you could have a criticism section, but even there I'm not 100% behind it. The problem is the phenomena is what it is, it's the commentary around it that is highly debatable and mostly opinion, if we start listing opinions where do we stop? when I came to the page it read like a far-right lunatic was having a rant about leftists that some leftists had later added more opinion to counter that - it was an unreadable dogs breakfast. I personally think the pop cultural references section should be cut too. The opinions that were expressed in the reception section seemed completely random, a director, a fiction author, a postgrad student...it was madness. The page is about a phenomena, it should be concise, clear and accurate, not rambling lists of opinion about who said what or thinks this about this that or the other. Bacondrum (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
You said if we start adding opinions on the topic, where do we stop. Well, there are ways we can negotiate limits. For example, we could start with a single paragraph on criticism. It would describe the main viewpoints in the most reliable sources. As you know, the concept of "reliable source" in Wikipedia refers both to the reliability of the author and of the publisher (e.g., does the publisher have a reputation for fact-checking). So we could determine, say, on call-out culture and cancel culture, that there are, say, three main viewpoints (A, B, C). Then examples of reliable source authors who are published in reliable source publications could be mentioned. A strong case of an author for inclusion would be the comments made by writers such as David Brooks (commentator) in the New York Times. As per your points about sources, I agree that a student journalist writing in a university newspaper (Note to readers: I previously added sources from university newspapers) is not likely to be less reliable, as the student author is not yet a professional journalist and nor is the university student-editor. Re: your comments on "having a rant"...I think there were too many quotes in previous versions, which inject too much emotion into the writing. As such, I propose that any criticism section be mostly paraphrase and summary.OnBeyondZebraxTALK 13:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

NO Op-eds or other opinions, fashion editors, film directors and students, fiction writers, or academics in completely unrelated fieldsEdit

I'm going to be watching this page closely. It should describe the phenomena, it's history and context. No POV, partisan, left or right edits. It's not a soap box for supporters and detractors. Claims made on a contentious page like this need to be rock solid, not cherry picked or based on primary source or sources authored by people with no real relevance or expertise on the subject. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).[6]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations This page was a dogs breakfast, of the highest order. Bacondrum (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, I believe your way of thinking about POV is not in line with Wikipedia policy. According to the WP:NPOV policy, we can add sources who have a point of view (POV) on a certain topic, subject to certain conditions. The POV of the source should be made clear (they give examples like "According to the conservative economist Sue Smith,..."). The NPOV policy says that you have to include all the majority viewpoints on the topic. You seem to wish to exclude all the viewpoints, including those published in reliable sources such as The New York Times. As well, both here on this talk page ("no...expertise on the subject") and in your edit summaries, you have stated that authors cited do not have expertise. If this was an article on quantum physics, then one might expect most of the cited authors to have PhDs in quantum physics. However, this is a social media phenomena, so the range of people who will write about it is wider, and could include a range of fields. Regarding your quote from Wikipedia policy on editorial commentary and op-eds, I think what that is saying is that I can't say "The melting point of quontonium [fictional mineral] is 112 degrees (source: Op-ed opinion article called "My theories on the melting point of quontonium" in New York Times). In that example, to indicate the melting point of a mineral, I should cite a scientific paper. OnBeyondZebraxTALK 12:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
An opinion piece written by an "economist" doesn't meet said "certain conditions". Unrelated field of expertise and a primary source being used as a source relating to statements of fact - not a suitable source by any measure. Primary sources (ie op-eds) are only acceptable sources for quotes from the author. There are rare exceptions when a person has very particular expertise, so an op ed by an academic specialising in online social/cultural phenomena might be usable, but not an op ed by a fashion editor or an economist, as their fields have absolutely no relevance to the subject. If they have no expertise in the field, it's an unqualified opinion and thus totally unsuitable. Op-ed citations authored by fashion editors, film directors and students, fiction writers, or academics in completely unrelated fields are completely unacceptable, no ifs no buts. Bacondrum (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a rolling commentary, a blog, a list of opinions or a news feed. This article was a rambling hodge podge of opinions, that is not what a wikipedia article should be, . This page failed on all accounts. This article should be expanded, but not to include the dogs breakfast of unqualified opinion that it was. Bacondrum (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with OnBeyondZebrax on this. This page is about a social phenomena. The primary source for a social phenomena, is anyone who is familiar with said phenomena. When dealing with scientific phenomena, we have research and models - based on reliable sources (research papers) we can describe the phenomena. But this isn't a scientific phenomena, this is a social one. It's our culture. Culture is defined by its adherents. So if you have a notable number of people doing something, it's part of that group's culture. We can specify the POV of certain reliable sources on the subject, and provide examples. See: WP:RSOPINION You can read more about reliable sources here. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't see your point, the primary source for a social phenomena, should be social science papers and news articles, not random opinions. Shall we list every opinion on any subject, hell, lets just write an article based entirely on our own opinion. you can add endless reams of meandering opinion if you want, but the article should identify a notable topic, summarizes that topic comprehensively, be written in an encyclopedic style of language, be well copy edited and contain references to reliable sources, I'm going to challenge anything less. Bacondrum (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alex.osheter: An op ed by a fashion editor is a primary source from an expert in an unrelated field, it is not a reliable source for anything but his own words. Bacondrum (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That is absolutely untrue. WP:RS applies to social phenomena just like anything else, and there are perfectly good academic and non-opinion news sources covering social topics. Bacondrum is entirely correct that this article relies too heavily on op-eds - we need to cut them down drastically. Articles should be based primarily on reputable secondary sources, not on opinion pieces; and the main use for opinion pieces, as WP:PRIMARY sources, is to cover the opinions of the author in a context where that author, themselves, is notable. Using opinion pieces to discuss the topic in general or to try and "convince" the reader is misusing them; and, by extension, all opinion pieces need to be from someone whose identity and opinion on the topic is, itself, notable (almost always because they are a subject-matter expert in the field.) Even such opinions by subject matter experts should only make up a small portion of the article, though. --Aquillion (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC on reliable sources, op-eds and notabilityEdit

I've edited this page down to a paragraph basically, because the article as it was contained mostly primary sources - op-eds - and these were mostly authored by people in completely unrelated fields, with no expertise on the subject. I may have missed something, but the page did not read like an encyclopedic entry and the citations were completely inappropriate, across the board. I'd like feedback about sources and the page in general, I personally think the page should be deleted or merged, failing that it should be concise, encyclopedic, accurate and properly cited, not a meandering list of opinion, cited with opinion pieces. Other editors want to reinstate the assertions backed by op-eds, I think these assertions, based on op-eds are opinion 100% POV and should not be published here. Bacondrum (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:RSE on pop culture - [...] due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Emphasis mine.
Also, per WP:RSOPINION - Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.
The New York Times is a reliable source, so are CBC Radio, Vice and the other sources in the article. You can correct a single line and criticize it for not attributing the opinion to the author, or you can find a more accurate description by a more reliable source, and correct that. But please refrain from purging the entire article. Alex.osheter (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Alex.osheter's comment. Bacondrum's deletions were unwarranted and not in line with Wikipedia's reliable source policies. DeRossitt (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
They're all op-eds. They can only be used for quotes from the author. None of the op-eds are authored by people with relevant expertise. Come on, the article read like a rant and was completely un-encyclopedic. Expand the article by all means...with reliable, relevant citations, not a roll call of random opinions. Do not reinstate op-eds and related assertions. Bacondrum (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Can I get some uninvolved editors to look at the content and citations: @MrX: @StAnselm: @Laterthanyouthink: @Boscaswell: I've edited this page down to a paragraph basically, because the article as it was contained mostly primary sources - op-eds - and these were mostly authored by people in completely unrelated fields, with no expertise on the subject, it read terribly and contained a lot of opinion. I believe the article should be concise, encyclopedic, accurate and properly cited, not a meandering list of opinions, cited with op-eds. Other editors want to reinstate the assertions backed by op-eds, I think these assertions, based on op-eds are opinion, 100% POV and should not be published here. So I was hoping you could give us some feed back? Bacondrum (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, you are edit warring. Please stop. You're undoing a lot of excellent contributions to this article, and you've cut the great majority of the text that was extensive and well-supported, and you are vandalizing it based on a misunderstanding of what constitutes a reliable source. No, the article did NOT read like a rant. You took an article that was over 50,000 bytes and reduced it to ~2500 bytes, extreme deletions that should have been discussed among the many contributors. This is why we have talk pages. The article needs to be restored to the shape it was in on 01:48, 2 May 2019 ‎(link to that version). -- DeRossitt (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, you are also edit warring, That's why I'm asking for a third opinion from experienced and uninvolved editors. The article was the worst I've seen to date. It did read like a personal rant and an article cannot rely on almost entirely primary sources. It should be concise, encyclopedic, accurate and properly cited, not a meandering list of opinion that relies entirely on op-eds (which are merely opinion, and are primary sources...and these primary sources were seemingly selected at random and authored by people with no particular expertise on the subject, music critics, fashion editors etc). Even the 2500 byte version I left was relying entirely on three primary sources. Not good enough. Bacondrum (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: does have a point. There are many names cited as in “Fred says/writes” who are unknown, could not be wikilinked, and there’s no mention of who they write for - they could be anyone. Further, towards the end of the 2nd para it says “widespread usage”. This term is not defined, whereas such a term needs to be. I’d not once heard of the term that the article is talking about anyway, and I haven’t got my head stuck firmly in the sand.
I’m sure that the article is very interesting, but it reads like a rambling magazine article and not an article in an encyclopaedia. I feel that those who insist that this vast piece of an article must be left as it is should perhaps reflect on what I wrote in my last sentence, rather than get over-excited by edit wars and the “s/he’s wrong and I’m right!” line of thinking that can result. Let’s face it, it doesn’t read like a good concise Wikipedia article. Such an article should be written with the aim in mind of making it straightforward for the reader to get right to the point, to be informed in a non-opinionated fashion, easily, without too much effort. As it stands, I regret that this article fails badly. Boscaswell talk 00:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree that some parts were written by unknown sources from unknown publications, and those should be removed but with a great deal of caution. Definitely not in the manner Bacondrum chose to do it. This version seems okay right now, but could be improved. Unfortunately, there is no reliable source that could define what the term is, not one that I could find. Best we can do, is adhere to Wikipedia's WP:RSOPINION guidelines. If @Bacondrum: can find one, that would be greatly appreciated. We have a sourced definition of cancel culture, but not one for call-out culture. I'll add a few comments to the article which will only be visible when editing, and instead of purging the article again, let's simply discuss which parts should be improved. Okay? Alex.osheter (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The page is about a neologism and since "there is no reliable source that could define what the term is" it should be deleted. Bacondrum (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know much of anything about this subject. My only comment is that many of the sources in the previous version seemed to be low quality sources. - MrX 🖋 21:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Given that an AfD has been opened, I would move to end this RfC, which honestly should have been a deletion nomination instead of an RfC from the get-go. (Summoned by bot) signed, Rosguill talk 04:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Neologism templateEdit

Added neologiam template, this is a neologism and the sources are all primary. Hopefully it can be improved. Bacondrum (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources - op-edsEdit

In the name of compromise I suggest that editors who claim to have secondary sources please add them. All primary sources and associated assertions need to be removed unless citing a quote from the author. Then perhaps we can have a reasoned argument about keeping the content based on reliable, non-POV, secondary sources. Bacondrum (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Those who want to keep this page, please improve the article by adding secondary sources. An article about a neologism cannot be based on primary sources, this is not simply my opinion, read the guidelines about neologisms. I believe the page should be deleted, but failing that it must be improved, none of the citations pass muster, not one, they are all primary sources, every single one, some by fashion editors and music bloggers, people with no expertise in any related field. Bacondrum (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Please read the following: Wikipedia:NORUSH, Wikipedia:Don't declare ultimatums. FOARP (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry, I've learnt my lesson. Besides, the page has improved that much from when I first read the thing - it's now readable, there are some quality secondary sources and the extreme bias has been removed. When I first came to it it was all but a not so subtle attack rant about feminists and leftists. I'm just happy it's not been restored to that extremely biased dogs breakfast. Bacondrum (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Respectfully, it does not appear you’ve learned your lesson. You’re back again with the tendentious editing. I will take this up with formal dispute resolution if you keep it up. DeRossitt (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I am still alowed to edit mate, I learnt my lesson and will not edit war. I still believe this page contains claims that are cited with absolute rubbish, like fashion op-eds. It's improved but it's still pretty average and the Cancel Culture bit is barely readable. Bacondrum (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, mate, of course you're allowed to edit, but you are deleting material that is well-sourced. There were good sources in the "cancel culture" material you deleted. I really think you should read the links that were suggested to you above ("no rush," etc.) because there's very good advice there. You have a tendency to come in here, deleting tons of stuff that is well-sourced, and act like it's urgent to get the article up to your standards that, at least in my view, are not really well-founded. There is no rush. There's no reason why you can't start a discussion on the talk page and come back in a month or two. Best wishes, DeRossitt (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
You say it was well sourced, but it wasn't, it was a bunch of unreliable primary sources being used to cite statements of fact, lists of quotes form random people with no relevant expertise, it failed to define the subject and whole paragraphs that were incomprehensible. The article still rambles, particularly the "cancel culture" section which barely makes any sense and tries three times to define the subject, but fails to actually do so. I personally had never heard of the term and was genuinely interested in learning about it, but I was shocked to see a borderline incomprehensible opinion, rambling opinion, cited with opinion, basically a highly partisan, anti-left rant about how horrible feminists and civil rights activists are. The article should define and describe the term, it's getting there now, but the "Cancel culture" section is a mess and only one assertion is properly cited. Bacondrum (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Jonah Engel BromwichEdit

Okay, so the page is incomparably better than it was when I first read it. I can see a number of secondary sources in the refs now, quality secondary sources. I also accept that the page doesn't warrant deletion. However, claims cited with op eds by this Jonah Engel Bromwich fellow in particular are not acceptable. The citation is an opinions piece, and worse still he has no expertise in the field what-so-ever, not even a vaguely related field, he is a fashion and style writer. Come on, it's pathetic, first year arts students stoned out of their minds would know better than to use that as a citation for term or neologism - his opinion really shouldn't be cited for any subject other than fashion. I'll leave it there, but we should be aiming for a quality article, not a hodge-podge of op-ed quotes. Bacondrum (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a hobbyhorse to you and once again you should read the links suggested to you above, this time the one concerning ultimatums. You do not have the authority to decree that a certain source is "unacceptable." If the New York Times published a piece by Jonah Engel Bromwich about cancel culture, your opinion about whether he is an "authority on cancel culture" is not the last word here. The New York Times is a better arbiter of Bromwich as a writer on cancel culture than you. You are also calling things "opinion" pieces that are not opinion pieces. There are many "lifestyle" pieces that discuss trends and so forth, and may be written in a light style, that are not opinion pieces. Furthermore, there are pieces that may fairly be called opinion pieces but they contain enough "reporting" that they are suitable sources. Your black-and-white categorizing of pieces based on your own spurious decree of whether they are "opinion pieces," "written by a fashion writer," etc., as if those pieces are by definition not suitable sources, is abusive and not supported by policy. There is no policy barring someone who has written on fashion being cited as a source here, please let me know if I have missed it. Furthermore, your tone in some of these discussions is disrespectful of other editors' work: "first year students stoned out of their minds," "pathetic," "FFS! (in one of your edit summaries) is disrespectful and uncalled for. Be more respectful of the efforts of other editors. DeRossitt (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
He writes fashion op-eds. I can read, the citation is clearly an opinions piece. I don't decide that it is unacceptable, Wikipedia does. The sources should be secondary sources for a statement of fact, in regards to an obscure neologism - preferably academic. In the cases where it is acceptable to cite an op-ed the citation should relate to the authors own words, not statements of fact, the author should have relevant expertise - the use of this particular op-ed on this particular subject doesn't come close to meeting the requirements, surely you can see that. Ill try to be more respectful. Bacondrum (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
"There is no policy barring someone who has written on fashion being cited as a source here, please let me know if I have missed it" okay: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news)." Here's a link to the guideline. The poor quality of this citation is reflected in the sections which rely on it, IMO. Bacondrum(talk) 02:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, I want to be respectful, but there's some serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on here. Please read up on the use of opinions pieces and what qualifies as a reliable source Bacondrum (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we at least agree to remove the piped links as per the guidelines? And this incomprehensible bit of weirdness: "#CancelCulture" and "#CalloutCulture" are popular hashtags on social media.[citation needed]" It makes no sense. I know American English is different to Australian English, but they are mutually intelligible and I can't make sense of this first paragraph.
Can you or someone else please just pick one quote describing Cancel Culture, it's beyond confusing having three descriptions?
There is nothing wrong with having three different definitions, particularly as they are overlapping definitions. Bromwich writes about culture so the fact he writes about fashion is not a reason not to consider him an expert on this topic. Op-Eds are considered primary sources in general, however in this case we're looking to a definition of the phenomenon and examples of it - in this regard the piece is more in the way of an analytical report. FOARP (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a term not a phenomenon, and it has a meaning, not infinite meanings. This is the reason statements of fact cannot rely on op-eds. Gah! Bacondrum (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
You might benefit from pausing to consider why it is that your efforts on this page and on the Outrage porn page have not been met with significant levels of disagreement from previously-uninvolved editors. Particularly, your position is often that of setting an ultimatum for "improving the page", when actually you're the one who is supposed to do this if you are the one who sees a problem - and if other editors disagree with what you want to do they you are supposed to discuss it and try to reach a consensus position. Anyone who knows anything knows there can be more than one definition of what a phenomenon includes. The number of definitions is not infinite, which is fine because we're not trying to include infinite numbers of definitions here, but there is no problem with providing more than one. Your point about op-eds is a non-sequitur - there is no relation between the number of definitions and the source of these definitions. Indeed, the academic references relied on here also provide more than one definition (compare Munro and Berube). FOARP (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
So, it has endless possible meaning? Jesus wept. It's a term not a phenomenon. You might benefit from actually working towards an encyclopedic article. Please read up on the use of opinions pieces and what qualifies as a reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
"Anyone who knows anything knows" Dick Cheney, is that you? Too funny. Bacondrum (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
If you can't see why your insult-people-and-set-ultimatums editing style isn't creating better outcomes for you, I can't help you. No, three overlapping definitions very clearly is not "endless". Yes, it is a cultural phenomenon and not simply a "term" (as determined at AFD - this is not just a WP:DICDEF since the references provide examples). Try creating a consensus in favour of what you want to do rather than berating everyone - and if you can't, just move on to a different topic. FOARP (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
You've hardly been polite, mate. I just want the article to be clear and encyclopedic, to use reliable sources etc. Like I said: You might benefit from actually working towards an encyclopedic article rather than insisting on a paragraph that is barely readable and makes several statements of fact that rely entirely on primary source. Please read up on the use of opinions pieces and what qualifies as a reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Article is about a phenomenon, not a "term"Edit

This article is about a "set of behaviors, usually displayed on social media". The topic isn't about a term, or a dictionary definition. The set of behaviors actually has a few names. This is a wp:refers mistake. Volunteer1234 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: "In popular usage, a phenomenon often refers to an extraordinary event. The term is most commonly used to refer to occurrences that at first defy explanation or baffle the observer. According to the Dictionary of Visual Discourse, "In ordinary language 'phenomenon/phenomena' refer to any occurrence worthy of note and investigation, typically an untoward or unusual event, person or fact that is of special significance or otherwise notable."

It's obviously a term, even if you want it to be something else, it is what it is...a term or a phrase. Bacondrum (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Apple is a term, but the apple article doesn't say that. You seem to be missing the point. Also the article lists 3 names for this phenomenon- Call-out culture, outrage culture and cancel culture. Volunteer1234 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Back to school. Apple is a word, not a term, a term is a specific kind of word or combination of words used to express a concept, especially in a particular kind of language or branch of study. A phenomenon, in common usage, refers to an extraordinary event, an untoward or unusual event, person or fact. But lets do this properly, and look to the citations (even though all but one or two are unreliable sources.
Of the citations used in the article, three clearly refer to the term, as a term. None refer to it as a phenomenon, none, nada, zilch, zero:
The article is about the trend- "The latest person to fall victim to this trend..." It is not about the victims of a term.Volunteer1234 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
This article is about the term "cancelled", it doesn't even mention "call-out culture" Volunteer1234 (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
This article also doesn't mention "call-out culture"
for the love of all that is good, work towards an encyclopedic entry, not your opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
One of your references is about a trend, the other two don't even mention the term "call-out culture" that you say they are defining. Volunteer1234 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I feel it's definitely an article about neologism; the term hasn't been around long enough to have a concrete existence. It seems tricky to find sources discussing its history as a term, though (I'm having trouble even coming up with who coined it or, at least, where it was coined.) At the very least, if we were going to cover it as a phenomenon, we'd need more and higher-quality academic sources going into detail on it as such - "here's something a bunch of opinion pieces talked about in 2015-2019" isn't really the sourcing we can use for a "phenomenon", since with that level of sourcing we're unable to use them to really say anything about it beyond "a bunch of people used this term, and here's what they thought about it." --Aquillion (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
which neologism? Volunteer1234 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Cancel Culture and Call-out culture are neologisms, or newly coined terms. They are both terms, even the names of actual phenomena are described as terms such as foo fighters and lunar effect. Bacondrum (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

So you are saying the article topic is about defining two different terms? Those other articles have wp:refers problems too. (I'm moving on since this isn't going anywhere)Volunteer1234 (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrative Notice Board incident report involving this articleEdit

There is an Administrative Notice Board report (which can be found here) concerning Bacondrum's edits to this article. -- DeRossitt (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

What for removing quotes that do not appear in the cited text, or making the cancel culture section clear and concise? Bacondrum (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you need to tone it down. Bacondrum is entirely correct that this article relies far to heavily on primary opinion sources. If you want to improve it or avoid having it trimmed down to a stub, the best thing to is to look for better sources to replace the ones being removed. --Aquillion (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

ClassEdit

Hi all! I'm in a graduate level class. I hope to research this topic and add more to it. I can see why people wanted to merge pages, as there are a lot of similar terms. I will look into this as well! Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGONZAGA25 (talkcontribs) 03:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Good idea, you could add content from merged page, I think that at the moment there is none, I just added one short paragraph. Good luck, here you can see material that was on merged page [4], pretty substantial.Sourcerery (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

In popular cultureEdit

Not sure we should have a section like this because:

1) This entire page is about popular culture
2) This kind of section quickly becomes just a list of trivia.

What do you think? FOARP (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I think it shows the impact it is having on media and satire. That's not what entire page is about, also it's from "Cancel culture" article that has been merged yet contains no material from that page. Think we need to import more on this page.Sourcerery (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I think "In popular culture" usually means "depictions of this in entertainment media" so the South Park refs are ok. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree FOARP, it's undue, the subject is a pop culture neologism. If it's going to be kept, a two sentence section does not warrant six citations, cut it down to one or two, maybe three, that cover the claims being made. Bacondrum (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

BRDEdit

Sourcerery I have two reverts on this article, not three. The first one. And the one where I pointed out that you were yet again ignoring WP:BRD. Please stop these edit warring tactics. You've popped up all over my watchlist this last day and in every case you're either engaging in WP:GREENCHEESE style debating at talk or you're going right to the edge of the edit war bright line to push preferred edits back into articles. In this case, I raised legitimate concerns regarding WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SYNTH - your sources are low quality to establish cancel culture applies in these contexts. And yet you ignore my WP:BRD warning and then accuse me of breaking WP:3RR when I am at two reverts. Two edits with no intervening edit by a third party do not constitute two independent reversions.Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not about me and you, this is about article and content, why are you so hung up on me I don't know. I assume you think I'm fascist or something similar since you said I'm denying Holocaust or something like that. Sources are good, people are notable there are plenty of more canceled youtubers and other famous people so it doesn't fall under Indiscriminate. Focus on topics and don't assume things, especially bad ones. It's obvious you have personal problem, problem is not with content, problem is that I was the one adding it. Please stop acting like this or I will have to seek some kind of arbitration or interaction ban.Sourcerery (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
This is about an article on my watch list which is now spilling over with fancruft and an indiscriminate list of random C-list celebrities. The fact this represents a pattern of behaviour bears mention only inasfar as to point out this is not the only article at which I'm having this problem with your editing behaviour, and I advise you to change course. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah right, funny how you didn't revert it when it was originally added, the "fancruft" part [5]. Calling it fancruft is considered uncivil as is accusing someone for Holocaust denial [6]. For "pattern of behavior" you can talk to administrators and if I encounter accusations from you again I will.Sourcerery (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

─────── Hmm this is also on my watchlist so have been looking... I do notice the merge tag above from cancel culture. It also seems that most of those people were also mentioned in the same sources that term it "cancel culture" so those are not necessarily indiscriminately chosen. I'm not sure about if every source should be used however, some seem to be opinion pieces like the nytimes one for Goldberg. It does use "Cancel" but this one is not mentioned by the other general sources I think? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There is consensus that "called out" usually leads to being "canceled" [7] in other words calling out is precursor to canceling, that's why it was merged. Will look up Kirsten and general improvement of this article, was hoping this Class project will do it and they said they have interest in topic so don't want to alter it too much during this period.Sourcerery (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

── My feeling is that additions like this are generally not useful to readers. Simply compiling situations where the term was used doesn't say anything use and risks WP:SYNTH in terms of how they're selected and included; it ends up just turning into a big unwieldy list. Things should only be included when there's secondary non-opinion sourcing indicating that they're important to understanding the topic; and even then, they should be placed in the appropriate section for discussion to their relationship to the larger topic, not in a giant list of every place the term was ever used in a way editors here feel are interesting. (Also, a merge decided elsewhere doesn't determine content at the "target" page - anything to be added has to obtain consensus here, if a policy-based objection to it is raised.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's best to be extra careful considering WP:BLP implications (and this may serve as example to the students as well). @Sourcerery: it's easy to see that you're not the original author and this can also happen to me when I merge altmed related articles: material on a barely noticed article suddenly appears on another one and can more easily be noticed and contested. Thanks for working on the merge, —PaleoNeonate – 03:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Strong disagree with Aquillions notion that this is not useful to readers, since it illustrates the topic.Sourcerery (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
It's all undue, why stop at the people mentioned in the list of cancelled C-list celebrity's, why not have a rolling, endless list of people, picked at random, who've been "cancelled"? Lists like this are problematic, to say the least. As for South Park, why list that at all? Shall we start a list of every show, book or article that addresses the subject? Bacondrum (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Even "call out culture" is questionable, but if it's a notable term... People have been fired, called to resign, excommunicated, shunned, flamed, denounced, etc, everywhere for a long time. —PaleoNeonate – 06:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Since this is a popular culture trend you may find the terms being applied to situations that are not unique from ones in the past. However since it is a popular concept, the only context for its meaning is popular culture, so if there is going to be an article at all it is going to need to address the specific and notable cases that give rise to the terminology. I think we would be applying special rules to this article if we said that the only thing that could be included were secondary sources describing cancel/callout culture qua cancel/callout culture rather than examples of its use. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and certainly doesn't need to be an aggregation of the sort of half-baked tabloid-style entertainment "journalism" that often focuses on so or so being "cancelled" on Twitter. If we want to address this cultural phenomenon, we should lean directly into secondary sources. And we certainly should avoid trivia such as, "this tired comedy show that was briefly relevant in the late 1990s doesn't like it." Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree on half-baked tabloid journalism, they should not be considered WP:RS, and agree about a trivia list. On the other hand, if the NYT, WaPo, HuffPost and the Guardian (for example, not saying it is likely) all covered a major instance of cancelling in ongoing coverage, what policy provides for excluding it from an article? It would potentially be DUE, RS'd and not NEWS, right? Going for an extreme hypothetical to set some boundaries. I don't think coverage must be about "call out culture" in general rather than a major instance of "call out culture", but if so, I am happy to hear why. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I realize my interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS is far stricter than average - I think that Wikipedia is far too reliant on newsmedia in general as a source and it should not be. However I'd suggest the question here would be whether the journalists in question have relevant expertise to identify a legitimate case of cancel culture or if they're just throwing around buzzwords because their editor told them to cool it calling everything "in the era of #metoo". Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
DIYeditor I think the article should cover the subject clearly and carefully and should not descend into a hodge-podge of WP:INDISCRIMINATE info, lists etc and WP:SYNTH assertions, cited with sources of dubious merit and/or unreliable sources, as it has in the past. The subject is controversial, the term is used derogatorily and thrown around in a highly partisan left/right manner - this was reflected in the dogs breakfast that this article once was, a tit for tat of POV edits. If the article is "going to need to address the specific and notable cases that give rise to the terminology" then the cases should be limited to those that have received widespread coverage and indisputably notable and not a meandering list random examples - if the only sources cited are primary then the subject is obviously not sufficiently noteworthy. Bacondrum (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Call-out culture" page.