Talk:Virtue signalling/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why is there a Wikipedia article on this?

I am surprised that this article still exists. Such fringe political articles should have been deleted. SarahMinuit (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Because the article is well sourced, and the concept is well documented. Koncorde (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's funny, I was just thinking "this is more like a dictionary entry than an encyclopedic one". I think this should probably go. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bacondrum (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference between a dictionary definition as understood by Wikipedia guidelines, and the current state of this article. The article, while a stub, covers more than a simple definition of the neologism. I think it is a stretch to say it "should probably go". Ealuscerwen (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I support deletion, for what it’s worth. Jolta (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

On what grounds? This neologism has received significant coverage in several reliable sources, so I don't see how it qualifies for deletion. Ealuscerwen (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ealuscerwen Generally speaking neologisms are dictionary subjects not encyclopedic ones. Also, the sources are weak, 6-7 primary sources, a dictionary and a book, but the book barely mentions the term, certainly doesn't discuss it. Bacondrum (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

SarahMinuit Jolta I've nominated the article for deletion if you want to add to the discussion Bacondrum (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Virtue signalling examples

This source has popped up from time to time as an example of the terms use, I think this source is of little value to this article as it barely mentions the articles subject virtue signalling. I think it's inclusion is undue. What do other editors think Bacondrum (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Meh. The article isn’t clearly stating the example, but it seems Ok. Whether to choose this or something else seems like it has to be a small item as there isn’t iconic big cases. You might plug in other things from Spectator or The Sun or The Guardian ... but any example seems like a semi-random one out of hundreds. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Source is fine. (It would have been better if you had phrased this as a question, because I'm not sure what form our "answers" are supposed to take.) It's true that Kill All Normies doesn't say much about virtue signalling, but the fact that it uses the term at all, so soon after the phrase was supposedly invented (2015 phrase, 2017 book) makes it noteworthy. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• RSN would be better but it's a borderline source: publisher is non-academic and seems to publish anything, Nagle also has critics. It can be used to support a notable opinion with attribution. —PaleoNeonate – 06:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing Posts

Please stop removing my adjustments to the initial definition. This term is a very politically charged term used primarily by conservatives and yet there is zero balance to this article. It is basically propaganda at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VurtKonnegut (talk • contribs) 18:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@VurtKonnegut: please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. The sources you've given don't relate to the claim you are making. In order to say "The term is used almost exclusively by conservatives", you need a source that says "The term is used almost exclusively by conservatives"; moreover, that sources needs to be sufficiently reliable and unbiased for that statement that you can say it without attribution ("According to Joanne Bloggs of Daily Newspaper, ..."). What you have is, I'm guessing (can't actually see the term used in one of the sources), two conservative sources that use the term. Not evidence of anything.

I agree that the article is very low-quality, and discussion of the term's political connotations as well as deconstruction of it (including opinions that the term is meaningless/a dogwhistle) is needed. However, your edit is not an improvement. — Bilorv (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Dictionary definition in lead

In relation to this, please see WP:BRD, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOTDICT, WP:LEAD... —PaleoNeonate – 08:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This the definition the reliable sources use and its not a copyvio at all.PailSimon (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead needs to summarize the entire article; it can't just quote a dictionary. We can use the dictionary as one source, but it's not appropriate to just quote it in the lead (and it is indeed a copyvio to use its exact text without in-text attribution making it clear it is a quote.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Spelling

It should be spelled Virtue Signaling, with one L. Signalling is not a word. --EdHayes3 (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If it is because it's origins are British, maybe that should be explained; more than just a redirect. I see first use was in US. --EdHayes3 (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:ENGVAR. I don't think that country of first usage would be a conclusive demonstration that we need to change to American English. There's no need to "explain" correct British English spellings. — Bilorv (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 September 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lmstrickland.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Explain like I'm five

Seriously, this: "Virtue signalling is a pejorative neologism for the conspicuous and disingenuous expression of moral values with the intent to enhance one's own image."

Can't this be re-written to be simpler to understand? Or is it like that for a reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.69.21 (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I've gone ahead and switched it up a little. I would encourage you to also change it if you think there's a better way to put it! ChipotleHater (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Many people don't make edits anymore because other editors just go and revert the change because the change wasn't discussed, and agreed to, on the talk page. --EdHayes3 (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia guidelines on introductions indicate they should avoid difficult to understand terminology. The introduction to this article is difficult to understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview --EdHayes3 (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd love to be able to work in a mention of the occasion earlier this year when some clueless right-wing journo accused the Archbishop of Canterbury of “virtue signalling”. Like, dude, that's his job. But I can’t think how. Bah! Mr Larrington (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)