Talk:Woke/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Identity Politics vs. Social Justice

The article is sometimes vague about what "woke" means and strays to a bigger definition than is supported in the sources the article cites.

The term "woke" refers to identity politics. There is not an issue encompassed by the term that is not related to identity politics. It would be good to limit the article's definitions to this more specific topic. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The Economist says that "woke" can "signify a progressive outlook on a host of issues as well as on race". A "progressive outlook" can by no means be reduced to "identity politics", which is a loaded term in itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Vox says that "woke" evolved into a "single-word summation of leftist political ideology, centered on social justice politics and critical race theory", which refutes your main argument right there. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What specific issue is not related to identity politics? In 2010-2020 liberal discourse, "social justice politics and critical race theory" are related to identity politics. In fact, a central thesis is that most issues are inextricable from, and should be viewed through the lens of, individual identities. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Please supply a WP:RS for this analysis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to be careful with word choice here; "progressive outlook" certainly isn't synonymous with "woke"; e.g., past progressives advocated eugenics. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Tell that to The Economist. Wikipedia summarizes published, reliable sources, not the musings of random Wikipedians. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with The Economist. Please address my substantial points rather than engaging in ad-hominem. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

So you agree that "woke" can be defined as "a progressive outlook on a host of issues as well as on race". Glad we have that settled. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"a host of issues"—but what issues? I am not disagreeing that "woke" encompasses a "host of issues". I am saying the issues are encompassed by "identity politics". A shorter, more accurate description is better. "identity politics" encompasses issues of race, class, demographic-based social justice, critical race theory.

I try not to criticize the tone of comments but I am trying to maintain an emotionless tone and find your comments aggressive. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please supply a WP:RS saying the issues the word "woke" signifies are encompassed by "identity politics", and/or that identity politics encompass "demographic-based social justice". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not OR that "identity" and "demographics" are synonymous in this context. They refer to groupings of people.

Again, give an example from a WP:RS of "issue" that the economist is referring to that is not related to identity politics. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Not how this works. As Aquillion commented below, the WP:ONUS is on you to show that the addition of "identity politics" is supported by a reliable source and is WP:DUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

DC9, one issue I have is that "identity politics" can mean a lot of different things, and the term is frequently used disparagingly. If you were to show that secondary RS routinely use the term in conjunction with "woke", I'd say we should go for it anyway, but I'd be surprised. At a glance, many of the sources that come up for a search joining the two terms are talking about how both are often vague/derogatory. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) The fact that a term sometimes has negative associations is not reason enough to avoid it.

(2) identity politics has a fairly narrow meaning: politics concerned with identities like race, gender, LGBTQIA+, Indigenous status.

(3) Not all sources use the word "identity", but neither do they always use other words included in the definition, like "social inequities", "American Left", or "white privilege".

(3) Example RS: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/787072: "woke" is concerned with race/gender/LGBTQIA+/Indigenous environmental inequities, justice, police treatment, marginalization, etc. It is not OR to claim that "race/gender/LGBTQIA+/Indigenous" are "identities". Also the source uses the word.

As I have said again, an easy way to end this discussion is to name an issue in an RS that is not related to identity politics. It should speak volumes that this is not forthcoming. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I get that there's a weird symmetry in our positions. I think you should come up with sources that support the article content. You think I should come up with sources that use woke about something that doesn't fall into the umbrella of identity politics. But only one of our positions has a WP:V mandate behind it. We have content in the article that is not currently supported by reliable sources. It's mentioned only in the lead with no supporting body content. This is an untenable situation. Do you plan to fix it, and if not, do you insist on it remaining anyway? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) My claim is "woke" refers to X. There are sources that support this. This isn't what's under dispute.

(2) Sangdeboeuf's claim is that "woke" refers to not just X. He has examples of "woke" referring to things, but none of these things are outside of X.

I don't see the contention. X is what "woke" refers to. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"There are sources": please cite them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not put "failed verification". Please don't tell me that equating "political ideas that involve identity and race" and "identity politics" is OR. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The 538 source you cited does not support the content. It only uses 'identity politics' once, saying

"There is a real divide among Democratic elites, with more centrist Democrats arguing that some ideas and behavior on gender, identity and race in particular coming from the party’s left are going too far. Again, this is nothing new. Some centrist Democrats joined conservatives in previous eras who were worried about the civil rights movement, busing and identity politics.

It's drawing a historical parallel with prior actions of conservative democrats. It's no more saying that 'woke' is synonymous with 'identity politics' than it is saying that 'woke' is synonymous with 'busing'. 04:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I'm referring to. See "ideas cast as woke are often coming from progressives and involve identity and race" DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Got it. I don't see that the source "directly supports" the content, as required by WP:V. Again, it's not helpful to use a loaded/biased/vague term unless we have to in order to summarize some reliable sources. We could borrow a tiny chunk of 538's phrasing and just say "and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity and race", but then we're essentially duplicating the last line of the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Substituting "identity politics" for "political ideas that involve identity" is not OR. The source directly supports it.

As a temporary compromise, I've used the phrasing you suggested. I support a more concise phrasing. (What 'race' related politics isn't identity politics?) DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not OR to say that "race" as a concept is part of "identity" as a concept. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Since there's agreement on "and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity and race", let's leave it at that for now.

Anyone who wants to change it should obtain consensus before doing so. DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm definitely not seeing any consensus for your proposed change here. The lead has to summarize the entire body, which includes an entire "broadening usage" section that describes how the usage of the term... broadened, with extensive sources. --Aquillion (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If you are opposed to the change, please do not revert it without giving a reason. DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• I gave a reason; the previous version summarized the article and its sources better, while you have plainly failed to achieve a consensus for your proposed change. Also, while this is an issue even with the older version, I agree with @Sangdeboeuf: that "identity politics" is a loaded political pejorative that shouldn't be used in the article voice at all unless the sourcing is completely overwhelming, which it isn't, here - I would definitely oppose any rewrite that tries to place any more emphasis on it, since we ought to be removing it from the lead entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  (1) You have not given a reason. You have not given any reason why you think the previous version is inaccurate. You just said, "I think the other is better." That is not a reason, that is a claim. You cannot try to break consensus by entering a debate without any constructive input.

  (2) A term having negative associations is not a reason to avoid using it when it is the most accurate, concise phrase for a context.

  Please do not engage in edit-warring. DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  You have not demonstrated any sort of consensus for your change; in fact, by my reading of the discussion above, your proposed changes were roundly rejected, after which you falsely asserted you had a consensus and attempted to edit-war them into the article. More to the point, while you might disagree with my reading of the sources above, both Firefangledfeathers and Sangdeboeuf seem to have read them the way I do; you alone are interpreting them the way you assert. Likewise, Sangdeboeuf, at least, also indicated above that "identity politics" is a word to avoid in the article - and in fact, per WP:TONE, we ought to avoid it. Neither do I agree that it is the most accurate term; what sources are you using to reach that conclusion? --Aquillion (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  If you think the changes were 'roundly rejected' you have not read the discussion. There have has been 2 other editors and I have directly addressed every point. DenverCoder9 (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Even if you feel that you've addressed every point, resolving a dispute normally requires that other people agree with you; naturally you feel your own arguments and responses alone are accurate and convincing, but that feeling alone can't generally be called a consensus. Anyway, since you asked, I went into detail on the sources currently in the article (and what the article currently says) to show how it doesn't line up with your rewrite of the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY - though I feel that people have already said this to you above and that your responses didn't really answer their objections at all. The root issue is that sourcing describes the term as having a broad meaning, and doesn't generally support your narrow interpretation or your focus on it being about identity politics. --Aquillion (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:, pinging you since DenverCoder9 seems to be asserting that you supported their recent changes to the lead - I am not seeing it given that you said but then we're essentially duplicating the last line of the lead, but clearly DenverCoder19 has seized on that given that I see no plausible way that they could possibly be interpreting anything Sangdeboeuf as supporting their position, yet they're still somehow asserting they have a consensus for their changes. DenverCoder19, you can't just assert that something is a compromise, then declare that it has consensus on your own, at least not once people start voicing their objections. If you want to demonstrate consensus for your proposal, point to people who clearly support it, or hold an RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Aquillion Please, please, you must actually add something to a debate. You cannot go around edit warring and say, "I prefer my version", without adding anything substantive.

@Firefangledfeathers agreed that "and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity and race" was an accurate summary. The only problem is that this allowed material to be removed. A more concise, equivalent lede is always better than a needlessly longer one. Perhaps I misinterpreted him as supporting the removing this content. But at least, there were no longer any remaining reasons not to change it.

I would like to point out the double standard and unnecessarily high burden that is required to make some changes, and that is not required for others. I have been engaging in constructive discussion for hours and then @Aquillion try to change things without even giving a reason. 06:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC) DenverCoder9 (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You're ignoring the second part of what Firefangledfeathers said, which clearly opposed making the change you rushed into the article. You're also ignoring the fact that I explained in detail that the article body more closely reflects the wider usage of the original language. And you're ignoring the fact that Firefangledfeathers, Sangdeboeuf and myself all clearly opposed the usage of the term "identity politics" in the lead, pointing out the weakness of the sourcing you were trying to use for it. You have been engaging in discussion, but that also requires being willing to sometimes slow down and acknowledge that your proposals are not supported by other editors. If you're seeking a consensus, I think that removing "identity politics" from the lead entirely is the closest to what we have here - but, again, I've pinged both the other editors involved and they can speak for themselves, there's no need to read tea leaves about what they believe. Certainly, with three editors opposed to focusing on the term "identity politics" and only you supporting it, I don't see how an edit that places more focus on it could be considered any sort of compromise - we should be discussing what we can replace it with and trying to reach a compromise on that, instead. --Aquillion (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel that this has already been hashed out above (and I think that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is enough, given that the body is well-sourced), but since DenverCoder19 has asked for specifics, here's my summary of existing sources in definiton paragraph the "broadening usage" section of the article - the part of the article the contested part of the lead summarizes.

• [1] First used in the 1940s, the term “woke” has resurfaced in recent years as a concept that symbolises awareness of social issues and movement against injustice, inequality, and prejudice. No mention of "identity politics" at all.
• [2], the most discussed source above. As we explained in a piece earlier this week, ideas cast as woke are often coming from progressives and involve identity and race (like the notion that white people in America have privilege or that Black Americans should get reparations.) ... But there is no agreed-upon definition of “woke” or a formal political organization or movement associated with it. Nor is there an exact definition of what constitutes being “canceled” or a victim of “cancel culture.” Only mention of identity politics is a passing mention attributed to conservative democrats, not used to define the term.
• [3] "single-word summation of leftist political ideology, centered on social justice politics and critical race theory", quoted in the article. Only mentions identity politics in passing, and again, only when paraphrasing someone criticizing "wokeness."
• [4] "to be woke is to be radically aware and justifiably paranoid. It is to be cognizant of the rot pervading the power structures." (opinion piece, no mention of identity at all.)
• Morgan, cited to a work she published as a sociologist and therefore probably the best source on the topic in the article, is quoted in the article body as saying "While coolness is empty of meaning and interpretation and displays no particular consciousness, woke is explicit and direct regarding injustice, racism, sexism, etc."

None of these support DenverCoder19's changes; all of them support the idea that we should probably remove "identity politics" entirely. At the very least, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY the quotes and bits cited to those sources do not currently support the idea that "woke" is universally accepted as being about "identity politics" - at best we can say that that is how its critics frame it, because that's how the few sources that mention the connection at all mention it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Like I said:

(1) The definitional source gives "has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity and race"

(2) "identity" is an excellent summary word because it encompasses race, gender, LGBTQIA+, trans status, etc. that the word "woke" as come to encompass. All sources mention one of these identity characteristics and "identity" is an excellent summary rather than cramming them all into the lede.

(3) race, gender, etc. is central to "woke" because CRT and progressive proponents argue that race, gender are a lens that affects all important issues, and are the key lens to understand social issues.

(4) Despite writing hundreds of words, @Aquillion has failed to name a single example of a "woke" issue that is unrelated to an identity (race, gender, LGBTQIA+, etc.)

(5) WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. "identity" is summarizing race, gender, LGBTQIA+, etc., which is what the body is about.

Further:

(1) "...came to encompass a broader awareness..." and "...such as the notion of..." are redundant because every issue listed there is neatly contained in "...American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice..."

I'm not going to continue arguing this. In my experience, the way it works is (Personal attack removed). This is why I swore off Wikipedia. 08:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC) DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe you are conflating "identity politics" with "identity". Not the same thing, and the former is often used in a disparaging fashion. Extremely POV to use it in WP:WIKIVOICE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• What do you mean "the definitional source?" We use multiple sources; most of them don't interpret it the way you do. Your interpretation of "identity" as an excellent summary word, your personal belief that "woke" only covers a list of identities, and your opinion that race, gender, etc. is central to "woke" because CRT and progressive proponents argue that race, gender are a lens that affects all important issues are all just your unsupported personal opinions, focuses, and areas you personally emphasize; as I demonstrated above, the sources currently in the article don't reflect that emphasis. Several high-quality sources do not use the word identity at all, while discussing the fact that that it also covers general injustice and inequality. Many note that it doesn't have a single agreed-upon definition and that its meaning has shifted over time, which, again, makes it clear that the vision of progressive views that you want to use it to present (as being solely about "identity" and nothing else) does not reflect the full range of its usage and meaning. As the sources imply, that is a frequent line of attack against progressive views as expressed by many of the people who use the term as a pejorative; but the term has a long history of being used in other ways, which the sources support and which the article therefore needs to cover. Likewise, when describing it, it's important not to adopt a biased framing or tone, which - based on the sources - implying "ah, it's all about identity politics" certainly is. --Aquillion (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the opposition to the use of the term "identity politics". I understand the issues with using such a charged word, but it does encompass the issues described. Crescent77 (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I would also say the sourcing clearly indicates its present usage may be as a pejorative more often that not, and the lede should indicate that. Crescent77 (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It should be noted the completely different tone of this article in some languages other than English, e.g. Italian, which I can read. This is a very US-centric view—the term is generally negative outside the US.

I think it would be more constructive to limit the debate to whether to include phrases like ...came to encompass a broader awareness..." and "...such as the notion of...", which are redundant. DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

No, my position is that we definitely have to either remove the term "identity politics" or (and I'd consider this a possible compromise, though we'd have to hammer out the details) attribute it to the people who use the term as a pejorative and move it to the criticism paragraph of the lead, reflecting the way it is used in sources. I think that it is reasonable to mention it as something that people who use the term as a pejorative focus on, but it is wrong to erase the term's original meaning or to imply that the people who used it before it became a pejorative were only referring to identity. --Aquillion (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no question that it is frequently used as a pejorative today, but the article needs to cover the full range of usage and history as described in reliable sources. As the sources above imply, term is currently used by many people to attack progressives by implying that they only care about identity; but it has a history of other uses that we have to reflect in the article, which don't necessarily line up with the way it is used by the people on the right. We do cover its use as a pejorative extensively (in the "as a pejorative" section and in the final paragraph of the lead); my objection to using "identity politics" in the article voice is that doing so effectively takes the side of people using it as a pejorative, when the sources generally don't agree and are generally more careful to attribute that perspective to the term's opponents. --Aquillion (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thought out responses Aquillion.

The sources indicate that folks of all political leanings use it as a perjorative, including many progressives themselves. The article should reflect the full history of the word, which it does, but the lede, especially the first paragraph, should succinctly present the common usage, which it does not.

I do understand your hesitancy, but when the common usage is as a pejorative, we shouldn't be sanitizing by removing other perjoratives. Crescent77 (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Which sources indicate that folks of all political leanings use ["woke"] as a perjorative, including many progressives? This has come up a few times already, mostly from users drawing their own conclusions about who is and isn't "progressive" from primary sources using the term "woke". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can write a Wikipedia article in any language. The tone of those other articles has no bearing on how we write this one. Which reliable, secondary sources indicate the term is generally negative outside the US? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Oof this thread really got away from me. I do think changing from "has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice" to "...ideas involving identity, race, and social justice" would be an improvement, though I have the same objections to wiki-linking "identity" to identity politics as I do to mentioning identity politics explicitly. I don't think "identity" and "race" need to be wikilinked, but if they do, Identity (social science) and Race (human categorization) would be the most reasonable targets. There's a side discussion above about adjusting the weight given to the pejorative use, and I think it would be better to start a new section about it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Reverted to Feb 25

Please do not re-add the same edits since Feb 25 without achieving consensus here first. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above clearly shows no consensus for your proposed changes. The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that your changes to the lead have consensus; while I see that you asserted that they have a consensus, your assertion is simply not true. Unless I missed something, few people there agreed with your changes. Quick nose-counts aren't perfect but provide at least some indicator. Based on what I see above, myself, Sangdeboeuf, and Firefangledfeathers opposed your changes, while only you supported them - you responded several times after Firefangledfeathers' last rejection, then suddenly seem to have decided you have a consensus? But, while consensus is not purely a numbers game, when every other editor says they're interpreting the sources differently than you are or is voicing reasons not to make a change, that's probably not a consensus for it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's why it's reverted to the Feb 25 version.

You're getting confused about which changes are which. DenverCoder9 (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the edits you made since February 25th definitely don't have any consensus supporting them in the discussion above. You made a WP:BOLD edit, but numerous editors objected, so now we should go back to the status quo from before that and see what changes actually have a consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

we can’t keep answering these inane complaints about “bias” and “neutrality” on every controversial article; please discuss the actual content meaningfully Dronebogus (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

From the topic sentence, this article clearly favors extreme 'woke' people's own definition of the word 'woke'. The more common usage of this word is to describe people that have extreme left-wing views on culture and the correctness of societal organization. This article describes this word when used with that meaning as a 'pejorative', and in using that word specifically, editors (and perhaps overarching moderators) have broken the supposed neutral tone of the article. 'woke' may have a generally negative connotation, but that in itself does not make the word a pejorative. I realize that this comment is quite similar to the one made by Euor, and I share the belief that there is a serious disconnect between how the term 'woke' is described here and how it is most nearly always used in real life debates. Moderators need not be blinded by their ideals when their most "reliable sources" do not publish the most correct information in regards to how 'woke' is most commonly used in the modern-day vernacular of different countries, not how it was used by a certain racial group centuries ago. MITG260 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC) As I stated to Euor above, any public debate is irrelevant without a published, reliable source commenting on it. Wikipedia exists to summarize independent, reliable sources. Users' own interpretation of how the term is used in real life debates doesn't count. This is part and parcel of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you want to change this or Wikipedia's Verifiability and No original research policies, the place to do that is at WP:VPP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC) @MITG260 There are no moderators. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Sorry, by 'moderators' I meant 'administrators'. MITG260 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC) @MITG260 Except for deleting copyvio, BLP violations perhaps, etc we don't deal with content. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC) As the article points out, the word as been used since the 1930s. The article does a good job summarizing uses through ought the last 80 or so years. I do not see why we would change it because of how some people perceive the usage of the word at this exact moment. Beach drifter (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC) We would change it to be honest and true. To explain the word as it is used today, as well as its history, to someone from another culture. The article maintains an historical fantasy, not 2023 reality. 2A00:23C4:15B4:1601:296C:E0B3:72C0:B490 (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC) So you are saying the multiple published, reliable sources cited in the article are engaging in historical fantasy. In that case it's on you to to supply similarly reliable sources that present a contrary viewpoint. Reality does't change just because some political spin doctors decide to use a word differently; see WP:RECENT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Marcus Garvey & Black nationalism

The Vox article only implies that Garvey's 1923 work was among the earliest known examples of wokeness as a concept, not the first one as claimed. "Black political involvement" is quite vague – involvement with what? Romano actually describes this as Black consciousness and a new activist framework. The source does not mention Black nationalism, making that characterization unduly weighted and verging on improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Crescent77 (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I would also suggest, going forward, rather than completely removing sourced material over vaguely innaccurare wording, you fix it instead. Otherwise, it has the appearances that you are removing sourced material for innappropriate reasons. Crescent77 (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The source you added doesn't seem to say anything about the term "woke". The same work also says Garvey converted to Catholicism, but without a source explicitly connecting it to this article's subject, that would also be WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The source addresses the concern you raised.

You're misrepresenting the concept of undue weight. Crescent77 (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you quote the part of the source that mentions the term "woke"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that if the source doesn't use the term woke, using it here might be synthesis - you can't combine two sources to reach a conclusion or implication not present in either of them. The Vox source says that The earliest known examples of wokeness as a concept revolve around the idea of Black consciousness “waking up” to a new reality or activist framework and dates back to the early 20th century. In 1923, a collection of aphorisms and ideas by the Jamaican philosopher and social activist Marcus Garvey included the summons “Wake up Ethiopia! Wake up Africa!” as a call to global Black citizens to become more socially and politically conscious, so if we rely on that source to discuss that early usage, we should reflect the way Vox describes him. It doesn't mention anything about him being a black nationalist. Taking that source, and combining it with a second source that calls him a black nationalist but which doesn't mention the term "woke", is synthesis in the sense that you're concluding that it's significant that one early usage of the term "Woke" was by a black nationalist, when neither source supports that conclusion individually. (We'd also be implying that he used the term as a black nationalist - ie. he used it during the period of his life where he supported black nationalism - which neither source supports and which isn't necessarily a valid conclusion.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix Aquillion. Crescent77 (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I have edited the description of Marcus Garvey to better align with how he is described in his Wikipedia page and most other encyclopedic sources, rather than the description used in the Vox article cited here. The descriptor of “philosopher” is not widely used in encyclopedic or academic sources to describe Garvey, and certainly would not be used above the more accurate description of his role as an orator and social movement leader, particularly within the specific political frameworks of Black nationalism and Pan-Africanism. Again, this better reflects Wikipedia’s own description, giving better cohesion between pages. Furthermore, the Vox article should not be regarded as an authoritative source for at least one significant reason: the earliest instance of Garvey using the rhetoric of awakening in a political context cited in the article (1923) is not the earliest instance on record (1921, as discussed in my edits to this page). I would also note that Garvey’s usage of the rhetoric of awakening in both the 1921 speech and the 1923 book does reflect his Black nationalist and Pan-Africanist political views, so including those descriptions here is appropriate not only to better reflect how he is described in Wikipedia and other authoritative sources but also because it informs the specific context of that use.

Given that the Vox article does not mention the 1921 speech, it is not appropriate to cite that article in this paragraph. I have therefore added the citation to the end of the following paragraph where the 1923 instance is discussed. Junniene (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I have also again removed the specific reference to “wokeness” in the first sentence of the “20th century” section, as this is inappropriately used here given that Garvey’s rhetoric adopts the idea of ‘awakening’, not the later formulation of “wokeness” specifically. The entry discusses the emergence of “wokeness” as a term later, and it should not be prematurely applied here to describe rhetoric that does not use this formulation whatsoever. I have therefore changed the sentence to read as follows: “Some of the earliest recorded uses of being or becoming awake as a metaphor for Black political consciousness…” Junniene (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's the problem: If you don't use a source that connects him to the term "woke", then the connection is WP:OR - without that source, your statement that Some of the earliest recorded uses of being or becoming awake as a metaphor for Black political consciousness..., and the connection you're drawing between that and the term "woke", is your personal opinion (in terms of its connection to the evolution of the term) and your personal research. And if we do use the Vox source then we have to reflect what it says. We can exclude Garvey completely if you don't think the connection between him and the term "woke" is well-sourced enough - I can buy the argument that one mention in a Vox article is insufficient, in which case we ought to take him out entirely - but we can't include a connection based solely on sources that don't actually make it; and if we do use sources that make it, we have to rely on what they say rather than performing WP:OR / WP:SYNTH by combining them with other descriptions of Garvey. --Aquillion (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Board of Regents

Thread retitled from "Opposition to racism is being used as justification for lowering academic standards".

I added the following:

To both its supporters and its critics, modern day American wokeness can be summarized based on this sentence that was published by the New York Times in 2017: “The Board of Regents on Monday eliminated a requirement that aspiring teachers in New York State pass a literacy test to become certified after the test proved controversial because black and Hispanic candidates passed it at significantly lower rates than white candidates.”

User:Muboshgu deleted it and commented, "we don't want your opinion in an article."

OK. That seems reasonable. My opinion should not be in the article.

That being said, the New York Times quote, on its own, is an aspect of wokeism that I think should be included in the article.

In addition to that particular example, there are many other reliably sourced examples of opposition to racism being used as justification for the lowering of academic standards. Here are some of those other examples:

https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/02/26/citing-racial-inequities-boston-public-schools-suspend-advanced-learning-classes

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-school-board-strips-Lowell-High-of-its-15938565.php

https://web.archive.org/web/20210807000800/https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2021/08/gov-kate-brown-signed-a-law-to-allow-oregon-students-to-graduate-without-proving-they-can-write-or-do-math-she-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-it.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20220410124259/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/story/2022-04-10/san-diegos-largest-high-school-quietly-eliminated-several-honors-courses-parents-are-outraged

https://web.archive.org/web/20210618142344/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-vancouver-school-board-phases-out-honours-programs-in-high-schools/

https://web.archive.org/web/20210423023502/https://news.yahoo.com/virginia-moving-eliminate-accelerated-math-204158628.html

In each and every one of these reliably sourced examples, opposition to racism is being used as justification for the lowering of acamedemic standards.

This is a very notable and reliably sourced aspect of wokeism, and should be included in this article.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC) SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

And what RS connect that to "wokeism"? Not a single one of those sources even mentions the word woke. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The word "woke" itself is not cited in any of those sources. But the basic idea of opposing racism is cited in each and every one of those sources as being a justification for the lowering of academic standards. These are examples of wokism, even though the word itself is not used. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

This is textbook WP:SYNTH. Please don't do that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That's like saying Black people are dumb which they aren't. Espngeek (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

These are examples of wokism according to whom? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments everyone. I don't want to violate the rules that you pointed out. I also see that someone improved the title of this discussion section. I'm learning lots of useful things from you. I appreciate that.

Does anyone know if there is some other wikipedia article where it would be appropriate to discuss those sources on the talk page? It seems to me that the subject of those articles is notable enough to be included somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Can anyone here suggest an article where it would be appropriate for me to bring this up at the talk page?

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of these articles are two years old. The NYT article about the New York State Board of Regents is six years old. If these events haven't been mentioned by more reliable secondary sources since then, it would probably be undue weight to include them in any article. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

OK. I really appreciate you explaining this to me. I'll take your excellent advice. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Thoughts on the article

I think there is a certain disconnect between this article, and the term and phenomena as it exists in the world at the moment (and which has been so for quite a while). I see this strongly outside the United States, not being American myself, but also when I am looking _in_. This article, it seems, started off based on the adjective woke, discussing it as a term, using its original orthodox meaning. The current situation, it seems, is rather about a claimed phenomenon of "wokeness" or "wokery" or some "awokening" - all terms I've seen used often - that many cultural critics perceive and debate in society, both in and outside the United States. As such the article seems to miss the mark. This debate and criticism, I suppose occurring partially within the so-called "culture war" (I shudder at the term), is also not restricted to the right side of politics. I am aware the right side of politics in the Anglosphere (and countries like Italy, etc.) have declared some "anti-woke" crusade for political purposes, but criticism of alleged "wokeness" in and of itself doesn't appear to be restricted to party lines. Outside the United States, criticism seems fairly ubiquitous on both mainstream left and right, while also within the United States, the criticism of perceived "wokeness" occurs on the Left as well (take, say, self-proclaimed leftist Bill Maher's non-stop complaints about wokeness, or (also claimed Democrat) John McWhorter's criticism that includes a book on an alleged "Woke Religion"). In short, I think the article fails to capture that the term has morphed into a pretty strong debate about a cultural trend or mentality or phenomenon, and that this is its primary common usage today. I would have loved an article managing to discuss this and pin it down a bit, since I think we all have noticed how the term "woke" has become an extremely elastic and vague term. Also because it seems to be extremely central to understanding many of the deeper cultural debates going on today. Thoughts? Euor (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the current situation, but for our purposes, the only relevant thing is what is published in reliable sources. Cultural critics are a dime a dozen, and culture-warrior debate and criticism from the usual places (op-eds, blogs, etc.) is generally not enough to satisfy due weight requirements. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

By current situation, I mean that the debate changes. And nothing has apparently changed as fast in the public debate as the term woke. This is recognized in the article, by stating further down that it has become almost solely used pejoratively at the moment. Absolutely agree cultural critics are a dime a dozen, and not something to build a Wiki on, but this appears to be a deep, crucial debate going on in America today. Or to put it another way, the idea or definition or concept of "woke" is in many ways at the center of the entire cultural conflict and divide at the moment, variously symbolizing (to left or right) identity politics, racial reckoning, critical theory, overly performative actions, etc. In some areas it has basically just annexed the term "political correctness". My whole point is that I don't personally think the article (at least the lede) reflects the contentiousness at the moment. Just watching the TV earlier, I noted how Van Jones also used the term woke casually (and negatively) as meaning a certain mentality or philosophy; his use was definitely not meant as "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination", as the article opens up with. Rather it was in the sort of negative sense that President Obama famously used a while back (which I know has been subject to some discussion here previously). I suppose one of the issues is that the academic literature (or academia more broadly) is a lot slower to react than the dynamic public debate, and I also have to admit I harbor a suspicion that there exists a disconnect between academic use and popular use (the academic one remaining of the orthodox sense used primarily here, but which has become outdated by popular standards). In that sense, we are stuck with a situation where the best sources (scholarly literature) might least represent what most Wikipedia readers themselves know and detect from the popular debate and pop culture. I think an example of the disconnect I am getting at, is the same reason this article has been tagged with a "globalize" template. As mentioned, mainstream European and non-American Anglosphere associations and definitions of "woke"—what it means and what it represents—is not aligned with the article. Perhaps I am mistaken though, it is hard to stay grounded and on top of everything nowadays.--Euor (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source. Any political public debate is irrelevant without a published, reliable source commenting on it. What WP users know and detect from watching the TV etc. doesn't count – please read No original research. --22:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 12:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC))

I do not think I have insinuated that Wikipedia is a news source. However, it is apparent from news media and published sources that there is a disconnect between this article and the debate, both within and outside academia. I understand you might be impatient in relation to this article, because I am sure it attracts culture-warriors by the dozens, and you appear to be the one swatting them away. I applaud you for trying to keep Wikipedia neutral and on the facts. All I am saying is that my impression is that this article has flaws, such as in not representing the contentiousness and pretty established disputes out there. The fact that it has a big banner criticizing it as U.S.-centric points to as much.--Euor (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Any political public debate is irrelevant without a published, reliable source commenting on it. What WP users know and detect from watching the TV etc. doesn't count – please read No original research. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 12:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC))

I am curious, do you think it could be an idea to have an article on the idea of "wokeism", i.e. the perceived ideology that is fairly contentious nowadays, while this article covers the term woke itself, from which "wokeism" is derived?--Euor (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NOR yet? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Euor is making a good point. It is a problem with the article. The importance of a word is how it is used and what it signifies, and there is a disconnect between this article and what the word means in written sources.

Please address the substance of Euor's criticisms rather than throwing out concepts like [[WP::NOR]] without tying them to a point you want to make. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a general discussion forum. Please supply one or more published, reliable sources describing what the word "woke" means in written sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Euro is saying "woke refers to concept X". He is citing writers who use "woke" to refer to concept X.

I am supporting Euor's point.

Please stop referring to wiki concepts without actually stating why they are relevant to the situation. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The writers that Euor has cited (Maher & McWhorter) are not reliable sources for socio-political commentary. One is a comedian/pundit and the other is a linguist whose views on (anti)racism have been called "intentionally provocative" and disputed by several published scholars. Hence his opinions are probably WP:UNDUE. Asserting anything about the general usage of "woke" based on a personal evaluation of either of these authors' politics would be WP:OR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf you must be fun at parties 🙄 2003:C5:4F39:4D00:8C08:C6AB:CB7C:D93F (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

3 April 2023

Thread retitled from "Relation to Neo-Marxistic tactics of Identity politics is missing".

The article does not resemble much of the current situation on earth. Its a US centric view, biased and missing out on the underlying Neo-Marxist's strategies for identity politics.

I know Wikipeadia essentially gave up on neutrality and is a central part of the censorship and narrative industry, but even ChatGPT's descripten of woke is better, less biased and does not hide the relation to Neo-Marxism. 2A01:598:B183:714F:FAB8:54C1:E976:F0B2 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

If you can't WP:AGF, you probably shouldn't bother. Do you have any WP:RS that discuss the relevance of the underlying Neo-Marxist's strategies for identity politics to this article? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The term 'Woke' when used this way is, essentially, a synonym for the term 'agitprop', which should, therefore, be included as one of the "See Also" topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.226.169 (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

woke

I understand there are different definitions of woke. Isn t one of them from the political right used to describe those on the political left. in a unflattering way? Harry12555 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That is specifically mentioned in the fourth (4th) paragraph of the first section. WyntersMyst (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The increasing opposition toward "woke"

This article should mention how, within recent weeks, the term "woke" is being misunderstood and abused by cerain people and groups in the United States. "Woke" is not exclusively an Afro-American term or a "Liberal" term. It has been adopted by people in all walks of life, often for the better but sometimes for the worse. Some people are trying to weaponize the word for their own intent. This article must include such data. Riffel2023 (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

See Woke#As_a_pejorative, which covers (some of) that already; if you think what you'd like to see added wouldn't be giving undue weight to recent trends and you have reliable sources for it, you can either add it to the article or discuss it here if you want help drafting language. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No mention of the academic neologism "wokeism" in the article

Dear contributors,

I am surprised not to see the mention of the neologism "wokeism" in the current article. Yet, there has been multiple reliable sources that used the term, even in the title of some researches:

1. Phiri, Peter (2023). "Wokeism: A Critical Analysis of its Impact on Society and the Emergence of Woke Capitalism". Diversity & Equality in Health and Care, 20 (3). doi:10.21767/2049-5471.20.03.20. ISSN: 2049-5471

2. Cammaerts, B. (2022). "The abnormalisation of social justice: The ‘anti-woke culture war’ discourse in the UK". Discourse & Society, 33 (6). 730–743. doi:10.1177/09579265221095407.

3. Weisman, Dennis L. (2023). "Can You Have Your Corporate Wokeism and Eat it too?". The Economists’ Voice. doi:10.1515/ev-2022-0035

Do I need to provide more reliable sources to suggest the inclusion of the word "wokeism" in the article as a relevant academic neologism?

Sincerely, Xavharel (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NEO. We need sources about the neologism, not just sources using it. Of these three, only #2 appears to say anything about the term itself. i.e. that "wokeism" is one of the frequent collocations of "woke" along with  'woke culture', 'woke opinion', [...] 'woke times', 'woke agenda', 'woke elite', 'woke dogma', 'woke ideology', 'woke activists', 'woke mindset', 'woke society', 'woke causes', 'woke broadcast media', 'woke insanity', 'woke mob' and 'woke Britain' . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer.

As for secondary sources explaining the term, it is effectively difficult to find a substantial number in the English-speaking world. However, because French theory (ideologies brought by Foucault, Derrida and other post-structuralist philosophers) originated from France, it seems that a lot more effort was made by scholars over there to try to define the French equivalent term wokisme in a neutral way.

Would it be fair to say that wokisme and wokeism are equivalent if the French scholars are equating both terms in their papers?

And according to Wikipedia rules, can we reference French secondary sources for an English Wikipedia article?

The following sources would be the ones explaining the neologism in French:

1. SIBONY Daniel, "Wokisme et psychologie collective", Commentaire, 2022/4 (Numéro 180), p. 879-884. DOI: 10.3917/comm.180.0879. Read Online

2. POLICAR Alain, "De woke au wokisme : anatomie d'un anathème", Raison présente, 2022/1 (N° 221), p. 115-118. DOI: 10.3917/rpre.221.0115. Read Online

3. TAVOILLOT Pierre-Henri, "Le wokisme ou le progressisme devenu fou", Administration, 2022/1 (N° 273), p. 63-66. DOI: 10.3917/admi.273.0063. Read Online

4. DÉLY Renaud, "Vous avez dit Wokisme ?", Humanisme, 2022/2 (N° 335), p. 4-9. DOI: 10.3917/huma.335.0004. Read Online Xavharel (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, I am still waiting for your thoughts on my last answer.

Regarding the equivalence of the French term with the English one, I would like to provide some major news media sources that have used both terms in the same article:

1. France resists US challenge to its values, BBC (2021) (This one is already cited in the current Wikipedia article.)

2. Le wokisme, une idéologie atomisée, Le Point (2021)

3. The ‘anti-woke’ crusade has come to Europe. Its effects could be chilling, CNN (2022)

4. The French Are In A Panic Over Le Wokisme, The Atlantic (2023)

5. «Aux États-Unis, l'élection présidentielle pourrait être déterminée par le clivage entre “woke” et “anti-woke”», Le Figaro (2023)

Considering these secondary sources, would it be fair to say that the term "wokeism" should be discussed somewhere in the Wikipedia article?

Thank you, Xavharel (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)