Talk:Woke/Archive 2

3961:". . if you were reading French newspapers Le Point, Le Figaro, Le Monde, or watching TV channel CNews, you might have believed that the true threat to France is the 'Americanisation' of social sciences in French universities. 'Gender, identities, cancel culture… The fantasy of the American peril': the presumed culprits are made clear, and the front lines are drawn – both across the Atlantic and within universities – for the latest battles of the French culture war. The issue, according to a growing list of critics, would be that French universities are host to 'indigenist, racialist, and "decolonial" ideologies (transferred from North American campuses)……nourish a hatred of "whites" and of France', as stated in an open letter in the most-read French daily newspaper Le Monde. Some of these critics have even gone so far as to found a semi-satirical 4580:' . . are now regularly invoked by activists, pundits and even some elected officials.any conservatives and Republican officials are now regularly invoking the term 'woke' as an all-encompassing term for liberal ideas they don’t like, particularly ones that have emerged recently Ten views, based on polls and public discourse, that are increasingly influential on the left. This is an informal list, but I think it captures some real sentiments on the left and ideas that people on the right are criticizing when they invoke the term 'woke': 1 . . America has never been a true or full democracy. . . 2 'white privilege' . . 3 . . a broader 'systemic' and 'institutional' racism. 4 . . Capitalism as currently practiced in America is deeply flawed . . 5 . . 1426:, which citations satisfy letter-and-spirit of WP's concerns about an opinion's notability, provided editors of a page deem said opinion sufficiently of import and relevance, etc. But, I tire of having to repeat my own side of the disagreement here. Maybe it's something like wikiinclusionism vs. wikideletionism and we'll just have to agree to disagree. Could you accept a truce such as that, then? If you must call out primarily-sourced opinions as though the same's a blanket disqualifier, could you do so especially succinctly, and then I'd agree to respond also in shortwinded fashion? What do you say? As, to me, the "controversy" mentioned @ wp:OPINION implies that there will be a mutiplicity of views; as well as the definition at 2739:"...In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim 'made with little or no proof' and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations".) 4588:. . 9 Law enforcement agencieshen they treat people of color or the poor badly . . 10 . . lots of Americans have negative views about people of color, Black people in particular. . ." // ". . most prominent uses of 'woke' are as a pejorative — Republicans attacking Democrats, more centrist Democrats attacking more liberal ones and supporters of the British monarchy using the term to criticize people more sympathetic to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Those critical of so-called woke ideas and people often invoke the idea that they are being 'canceled'deas cast as woke are often coming from progressives and involve identity and race . . " 264:." Something approaching Feature-article level coverage of controversial topics is often only achievable through balanced use of notable opinion pieces; otherwise, imbalance results in favor of the pov's of proponents of the theory or otherwise-controversial subject under review: in my opinion, ND's editor and principal author (who has co-authored more than one book-length treatment critical of the topic at hand) satisfies this requirement of notability for our purposes here. See wikiguideline Neutral#Bias in sources; the essay "RS may be non-neutral"; & wikiguideline "PARTISAN": 2195:, not sufficiently supported by the sources cited; most of these sources don't even use the term "woke", which is a bare minimum to be relevant. Out of the sources, the NYT, Guardian, Capehart, Wuench, and Nymag ones don't use the term "woke" at all (the latter two are also opinion pieces that you're trying to cite to establish facts.) The Atlantic one uses it a sense that directly contradicts the one you're arguing for in this paragraph. The sources for Chait, McWhorter, and Bejan likewise don't use the term 'woke' and cannot be used (this actually involves 4405:. . It's a striking — and increasingly familiar — tale of the battle the Woke left is now waging on well-meaning liberals who don't seem to understand the illiberal nature of what they are facing. . . the Woke left has the liberal left’s number. It’s called guilt. . . The Woke left doesn’t want to be a party to this bargain. Absolution is off the table. And the liberal ideals themselves are up for renegotiation. In place of former notions of fairness toward individuals regardless of race, the Woke left has new ideas of ' 31: 575:- In Cynical Theories, dissident academics Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay bear a timely warning: Destructive ideas, built to take aim at liberal democratic capitalism, will have destructive consequences. These ideas, known as Critical Theory, Social-Justice Scholarship, or just “Theory,” openly acknowledge their appetite for destruction. Adherents to Theory reject the authority of science, view liberalism as oppressive, and deny the possibility of objective knowledge. 2200:

in the sense you're trying to establish; two of them are low-quality opinion pieces by non-experts, and one of them is an article about a hotline that ultimately only uses it in passing without going into any depth on it, and essentially implies that it's grandstanding by another culture-war talking head with a lot invested in the topic - the amount of focus you're devoting to the existence of the hotline, which is largely trivia, is plainly

2313:- There doesn't appear to be any sort of consensus or agreement on what "wokeness" is, and the best we can apparently conclude from the available sources is that's a pejorative applied by opponents of progressivism and social justice to a wide variety of things they oppose. Using sources which don't use the word "woke" to support claims about living people being "woke" or responsible for whatever "wokeness" is, is dishonest and violates 531:- “Cynical Theories”, a forthcoming book by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, two writers, argues that the two systems of thought are incompatible. One reason is that the constellation of postmodern thinking dealing with race, gender, sexuality and disability, which they call “Theory”, disempowers the individual in favour of group identities, claiming that these alignments are necessary to end oppression. Another is Theorists’ belief... 2744:"However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Because 'Boston Massacre' is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title 'Political impact of the Boston Massacre' would also be acceptable.") 2697:

that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

2060:

context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in 'Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...'

453:. The author of the piece, David Bern, does not appear to be a recognized expert on cultural issues - his bio simply calls him a "nonprofit CEO" and "critic of woke ideology" and his Twitter account has fewer than 600 followers. Unless there's substantial reliable secondary sources commenting on Bern's opinion, it's unclear to me why his primary-sourced opinion 2683:. Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create an uncommon neologism in English. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Knowledge's, that project may cover neologisms that Knowledge cannot accept. Editors may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead. 581:- James Lindsay, has been promoting the book he wrote with his colleague Pluckrose, Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody. According to the authors, it began in the 1960s—like so much else—with the broad acceptance of postmodernism as an academic philosophy. 587:- James Lindsay, one of the three scholars, along with Areo magazine editor Helen Pluckrose and Portland State philosophy professor Peter Boghossian. However, Lindsay added, “a culture has developed in which only certain conclusions are allowed … the fields we are concerned about put social grievances ahead of objective truth.” 1411:'s "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Not only that, but – and this ostensibly by way of illustration – this guideline (helpfully shorthanded as " 4061:, little material remains here in to split off; rather, its edit history would have to be combed through to find where sufficiently-sourced material about, as it might be offhandedly termed, "anti-wokeness," was contributed but subsequently removed, with there not yet being another article to which to contribute it. 4429:

skit entitled 'Are You Too Woke?', social justice is presented as a fad for white youth, who will soon grow out of their caricatured, liberal views. More aggressive cases attack 'identity politics' in order to condemn those who speak out about experiences of racial inequality for demanding 'special treatment.' . ."

569:- As Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay put it in their book Cynical Theories, the question is not ‘Did racism take place?’ but ‘How did racism manifest in that situation?’ Those trained in critical race theory are apparently uniquely qualified to make such determinations; the rest of us have to take them on faith. 1566: 3251:--my thought's having then been of "woke" as the universally-accepted monicker, in English, for what Beaud & Noiriel were critiquing. I've changed my editorial direction since then, however, and now think the ah amalgam of /a/, /b/, & /c/ components of social consciousness occasionally tagged 2583:

At first, I thought these contributors were engaging in wikilegalistic or pedantic gamespersonship and that they were (as were Romano and Illing!) simply going about their business – out of some kind of ill-begoten, "socially-conscious" motives – of their attempt to accomplish the deprecation of this

2563:

a synonym for "social," obviously!). Pinker talks of an ideology increasing in promenance especially in 2020. Any reasonably-observant person watching the social scene would agree with him here; and, as any review of commentators-on-society (including editors creating short headlines) during the past

2498:

of the utility of it's being a one-syllable summation of related things describable in various ways by seven other multi-word phrases. This word's currency exists, at the moment. It's a common feature of language development that growing and/or allegedly "uppity" social phenomena or movements receive

2446:

provenance. (Easy to do: In that the eight "sometimes-constituent" phenomena each are quite-arguably of the left-wing, so, one might overgeneralize that criticisms of the these "left-wing" phenomena would have sole provenance in the opposing wing.) This hypotheses, however, doesn't seem to align with

2059:

Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific

1438:

as "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty" all fit into my own statement, "FA quality is often achieved through use of opinion pieces." I see you disagree, either in my emphasis or in my definition of what constitutes "opinion pieces." (By which I mean,

1266:

comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral:

1131:

whom you patently identify as being the "fringey" ones, IMHO. Are you revealing which side you personally support in this debate? E.g. Richard Dawkins's side (about postmodern attempts at scholarship's allegedly disguising its lack of anything deserving the name by resort to obscurantism)? or that of

273:

biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform

4428:

rightly points out that the term 'woke' has in recent years been twisted by conservatives of all kinds to undermine anti-racism. Institutions and individuals hostile to racial justice work are armed with many terms to trivialise an individual’s commitment to fighting inequality. In the case of a BBC

3882:

ie, the times' paris correspondent norimitsu onishi's coverage given governmental, media, and scholar 'guardians' of european culture having countered a variety of post-floyd 'cancellations' (hah! some were mere postponements) there by brushing them with an alleged tar of their being "out-of-control

3123:

These examples, among others, are as many signs for the New York Times that France lives an "existential threat". By implication, it exaggerates the importance of the decolonial movement on American campuses, concentrated "around a handful of disciplines". The American newspaper sees it rather as a

2696:

use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources

2199:

issues because you're implicitly attributing to them controversial positions that aren't supported by the sources you used.) The final Pluckrose one doesn't use 'woke', either, and is published in an unreliable source besides. In fact, out of the cites here, only three of them use the term "woke"

2455:

as a shorthand!— Including: By editors when writing headlines. By journalists when needing a quick and/or punchy way of expressing their own critiques or when giving journalistic coverage to such critiques as spoken or authored by others. By commentators of whatever political stripe or of whatever

2704:

Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Knowledge. The term does not need to be in Knowledge in order to be a 'true' term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an

4490:

Would you be so kind to kindly refrain from, with all due respect, ad nauseum re-re-re-re-re-referencing the identical contention, w/o proper guidelines support nor even the attempt to impeachment the thrust of what guidelines I'd cited? Because, understandably I think, I tire to, like a broken

3282:

word and appends as definition: awaken to discrimination), and "cancel culture" – not, per se, because of its decolonialism (Guerrin's favored one-word shorthand?) but because of alleged "abuse" of the same through cancel culture's/the "woke's" self-perception of inherent morality and hence its

1622:

arguing that "Republicans are trying to outlaw wokeness," which adds that "Jeffrey Sachs, a professor of politics at Acadia University, calls it 'The New War on Woke.'" Elsewhere RS discussions abound that concern woke-influenced sensitivity trainings in government and business human resources

1118:

I deduce that, within certain subdisciplines of the (self-admittedly) "soft" sciences, researchers and theorists have attempted to effect a correction to certain systemic, cultural biases that's been perpetuated in these fields from days past &ndasd; and, in their efforts to do so, they've

4501:

in giving encyclopedic coverage to subjects of controversy: such, as in our present case's sub-set of the culture wars. To save from repeatedly pushing the exact same combination on my keyboard (...and, Who knows? perhaps resulting in my developing a pernicious carpal-tunnel condition, or

1042:

Such a regime would be unworkable to apply on Knowledge across the board; by which token, it cannot function as a regime at all but only as an ad hoc rationale. Lindsay's a published philosopher whose numerous books have been reviewed in multiple independent sources, yet because he isn't

3128:

The New York Times forgets to say that it is less the decolonial approach that is denounced in France than its abuses, in particular the exclusion of any other approach and its moralizing postures. The newspaper ignores the dozens of examples of censorship in the United States, rampant

404:. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make 2489:

as "woke"? Maybe a single person did it; maybe several or many did it unbeknownst to each other: It doesn't matter one way or another, though, because: How the development of language works, is that when someone comes up with a useful term, it gains currency through its utility; and,

563:- Most of my nonfiction reading lately has, sadly, been about critical race theory and identity politics. Cynical Theories, by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, is an invaluable primer for anyone trying to understand what this new set of jargon means and what its architects intend. 2928:". . One need only look to the pages of Tablet Magazine, National Review, or a seemingly endless parade of podcasts and Substacks to see how common these once-fringe theories have become. And so by the time a local politician encounters them, even the most lunatic of voices . ." 3937: 3402:): Commentatary that's been made note of by sources independent from it are for our purposes notable, including not only Macron's about American cancel culture and so-called wokeness but that of the pair of social scientists who'd spearheaded the letter published in 3142:

In 2021, Social scientists Stéphane Beaud and Gérard Noiriel argued that French culture, to achieve social progress, should retain as an object greater leveling of social classes without emphasis on racial considerations rather than adopt that of its becoming "woke"

332:, which is the leading newspaper of record in the United States yet which is sometimes said to reflect a left-wing point of view. If that presents a problem within article space, the problem is not reliability. The appropriate Wikipedian solution is to include 376:. Generally speaking, both sources are reliable. When these two sources differ, Wikipedian purposes are best served by clearly stating what each source reported without attempting to editorialize which of the conflicting presentations is intrinsically right. 1019:

to be accepted as knowledge are accounted for! For example, Lindsay-&-company's book related to our topic at hand is notable enough that it has its own wikientry -- of course, at which could be created a wikiarticle section dedicated to its chapter about

4087:

might be construed, as you say, "an advocacy group." However, my noting that MDI has affiliations with such academic institutions as the U. of Westminster, Mass., and that perspectives of inclusiveness generally are valued among the MDI's targeted areas of

2554:

Which is to say: I doubt any informed person has trouble making out what Pinker was referencing, ideologies' being social movements (for example, a candidate runs for a seat and, when she begins to gather support, political scientists begin to use the term

795:... that's what opinion magazines do. They publish opinions, often controversial ones. That doesn't mean (non-expert) opinion is relevant for our purposes. CRT is but one of the many fields and schools swept up in Lindsay & co.'s anti-wokeness dragnet. 302:

guideline. Arguments often arise which contend that a given source ought to be excluded as unreliable because the source has an identifiable point of view. These arguments cross a wide variety of topics and stem from a common misunderstanding about how

4171:, david greenberg, history & journalism/media prof. @ Rutgers, "The Campus War over Israel": "the past decade saw the rise of the woke progressives . .") — and more readily comprehensible than, e.g., the bo winegard, ben winegard & david geary- 3112:

President Emmanuel Macron denounces social science theories imported from the United States and the Minister of Education, Jean-Michel Blanquer, calls for them to be combated. About a hundred academics supported the latter in Le Monde on October 31,

2212:. Finally, I don't see what source you're using for the term "wokeism", which would clearly require a high-quality non-opinion source to state as if it were definitely an indisputable thing in the article text, the way you're using the word here. -- 2470:. (By the way: Note that, in Pinker's branch of the Academy, if Conservatives are not as "rare as black swans," they are not common— and, in fact, Pinker's own case, he happens to be outspokenly very politically liberal and, also – an advocate of " 3705:

is passing wp's NEO with concern its meaning the overall woke left – although, as I admit, my original contribution of the material sourced to Onishi concerned precisely the meaning that's now in dispute. However, my initial inclination wasn't

3511:

The title of this talkpage section involves the nytimes piece "'Woke' American Ideas Are a Threat, French Leaders Say" and whether these "woke American ideas" should get coverage in our WP article. To discover to what "American ideas" the

4083:( – Fwiw, I think it's this "inclusive writing" that is what MDI itself encourages in its targeted sectors of journalism, the academy, and civil society – that is, business, government, etc. – by the way. So, I guess, in this regard, the 4004: 1985:, material that's self-published, I do note that one of the above citations is to Raluca Bejan, a published academic who teaches in the school of social work at Nova Scotia's public university Dalhousie, which piece was published in the 1119:

ventured a panoply of brand-new theories within these subdisciplines— Enter, Pluckrose, Lindsay & Boghossian: who've attempted, at some degree or another at least, to debunk them. I grant that papers in these P/L/B-critiqued fields

311:. The neutral point of view policy applies to Knowledge articles as a whole: articles should reflect an appropriate balance of differing points of view. The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for 2289:

Firstly, I agree with Sangdeboeuf that this should be closed and revised because I honestly don't understand what I'm being asked to comment on. But reading the proposed text, I agree that it should be excluded. It seems to be

3223: 2515:, I guess, is jokey for the Temperance movement and now seems usually used with self-deprecation to mean "abstemious." Methodists figured the term was as good as any (if not, perhaps, better than others) and simply adopted 395:. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. 2615:, I then illogically thought any talkpage commenters hereabouts would do so, as well. But, it turns out that there seems to be pretty solid ground for them to doubt this shorthand even exists! Probably a lot of people 3120:(Gallimard), the specialist in Islam Gilles Kepel denounces "the Islamo-leftists, decolonials and other intersectionals, holding the upper hand at the university, who prohibit any critical approach to political Islam. 2499:

nicknames that are and/or were originally derogatory: "flaming" "queers," teetotalers," the "Methodists," the "Quakers," the "Mormons." One option for a group thus shorthanded-in-its-being-critiqued is to so-called

4180:: ("we forwarded what we termed the 'paranoid egalitarian meliorist' (PEM) model of progressive bias. I’ve come to believe that the name ispejorative, so my colleagues and I have renamed it equalitarianism. . "). 849:. Those are not the words and deeds of a disinterested "expert" in a field. No one would describe Michael Moore as an "expert" on conservatism - similarly, James Lindsay is not an "expert" on critical race theory. 1304:

has stated: "The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."

1286:"reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." 2902: 4017: 3299:

political reporter Sean Illing also has reported on analogues to Michel Guerrin's critiques in the US and UK, interviewing Jeffrey Sachs, as an expert, who's an economics professor at Columbia. (3) Below the

3263:

Onishi, we as of yet apparently don't have WP entry – as wp:NEO advises to be composed of some "descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even ifsomewhat long or awkward" – where such critiques can be

1132:

these newer theories proponents? And, in point of fact, whereas e.g. Google scholar links papers by these theorists, so does it to the paper written by P. L. & B. proposing their critique. Just saying.--

1051:

that had been authored by individuals of Linday's level of academic credentials, it wouldn't take too great a stretch of the imagination to believe you likely to suddenly discover some rationale to link to

3061:

A savoir le décolonialisme, les études sur la race ou le genre, les mots « woke » (éveillé aux discriminations) ou « cancel culture » (qui condamne les créateurs inconvenants ou les œuvres inappropriées).

2335:

I withdrew the formal RfC which apparently wasn't loading in favor of a request for help, of less formality, about whether to give encyclopedic coverage to the suggested topic and, if so, how to do so.--

2550:

Conservative will become scared off and come up with an alternative (say, should it become successfully tabooized as a vulgarism, perhaps even sometimes resort to terming critiques of the ideology "the

541:

by Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay Review — Woke warriors are conquering academia: This book exposes the brainlessness in today’s universities. Douglas Murray fears that it may have arrived too late

2350: 1222:

If it is of this last-mentioned emphasis that my statement's to have been successfully contradicted, note that the first line at the wikiguideline "Opinion" (which I bluelinked and highlighted) reads:

1127:

to which Ms. Pluckrose & co. were enjoining (their critiques' contending that the general run of the newly-minted theories in these fields have as yet not been subjected to sufficient rigor), it's

1687:

programs, and aims to "help people convince their employers to allow them to reject racism from their own philosophical, ethical or religious beliefs and not highly theoretical and political one."

2075: 1592: 1150:

is generally useful for finding academic papers, not all of the sources listed there are academic publications. Lindsay and Pluckrose did not publish their findings in an academic journal, and the

4108:

to be toward "cultivating practical skills to combat negative stereotypes and disinformation, improve media and information literacy, and influence the conversation on diversity and the media"(?))

2845:

that statement for a citation. These are all contentious, loaded terms/topics. Saying or implying that any or all of them fall under the rubric of "woke(ness)" is highly POV. Giving coverage to

1491:

source to which our article extremely directly refers indicates to me the difference between one camp's narrow interpretation of the guidelines and another's broader one, both reasonable IMHO.--

441:

isn't an independent reliable source. It's akin to a personal blog - there is no evident editorial structure or masthead, and there is no indication of fact-checking or correction policies.

4163: 3982:

article. And, respectfully, that this entry's name utilize some terminology used by individuals in this counter-movement, while it also follows our wikimanual of style's wise guidelines at

1199:, of my statement as just given, had been by them successfully contradicted: Where I'd said that FA quality can be achievable through use of opinion pieces which have been determined to be 3475:(". . Guerrin, warning about the danger of the country being carried away «slowly but firmly on the road to America . ."), etc. — his, since then, apparently continuing to double down 3331: 2953: 2317:. Specifically, not a single source in the proposed addition connects Coates or Anderson to "wokeness," and Kendi gets two passing mentions of his name without detail. This is clearly 2442:

are used "by folks on the right-wing," it seems to me, as well.) Anyway: I think Romano and Illing both err a bit in their implying it is the right-wing that must have been the term

2768:. If you want people to take your argument seriously, provide actual peer-reviewed scholarship on the term, not your own inferences from sources or poorly chosen policy quotations. 2030:

writes about US culture and politics, NPR "Morning Edition" journalist Steve Inskeep has received awards including for his reporting on complexities of electoral politics and race,

361:

It requires less research to argue against one reliable source than to locate alternate reliable sources, which may be why neutrality/reliability conflation is a perennial problem.

2527:) once accepted their own use of this formerly-given designation in more informal contexts but have come extremely recently almost completely to deprecate its use among themselves. 2978:, which uses the term "woke" once, almost as a throwaway line. I think we need more than such trivial usage to establish relevance. How exactly do you propose we use this quote? — 4057:

Material in our article concerning businesses's being termed "woke"? Actually, It seems, due yours and other editors' efforts to restrict coverage in it to the definitionally

3470: 3678: 1919: 4228:

is contentious. Your own source says "identitarian Leftism" is derisive, and "woke" (as in "woke progressivism") is used as a mocking insult by critics. None of these are

4584:. 6 . . identify as whatever gender prefer . . 7 . . disparity — for example, Black, Latino or women being underrepresented in a given profession or industry . . 8 . . 3255:

out of journalistic or argumentative convenience somehow doesn't yet carry any set label; so, although Beaud & Noiriel and others' critiques of are noted by various

725:... no one is suggesting we exclude sources based on their POV. Due weight of opinions based on reliable sources is exactly what most editors here are going for, I think. 358:

clause of the neutrality policy. Overall, good Wikipedian contribution renders articles objective and neutral by presenting an appropriate balance of reliable opinions.

1882: 555: 4111:

Thanks for the thought about not adopting, perhaps, a descriptor used by a particular "player" (perhaps its somehow giving the player unearned prominence?). However, I

3068:

A long investigation published on February 9 on the New York Times' site is studded with teasing irony. Its title: "Do American Ideas Threaten French Cohesion?" »Bigre:

4346:

A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right

1651:, and others, had come to cultural salience in the U.S. After various company human resources departments began featuring some of these works' thought within employee 3116:

In their essay Race and Social Sciences (Agone), the sociologist Stéphane Beaud and the historian Gérard Noiriel worry about an “Americanization” of France, while in

400:

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific

3436: 3124:

form of distress of white and elderly men who are afraid of losing their power in a France which was a great power and which denies its racism as its colonial past.

3056: 3949:

is about the term itself. Yet, there is also a movement that is against things that encompass said wokeness, along with a few other things. (See, for example, the

1609:" (which Cambridge University defines as a mainly US informal noun meaning "a state of being aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality"). 4543: 4467: 4387: 2344: 4176: 2208:, but in practice you are hinging the entire section on what they say, while using unrelated non-opinion pieces to try and make their argument in the text via 878:

piece I linked to is by one David Bern; Lindsay is the founder (and editor?) of the site. Are you proposing to use a different source by Lindsay commenting on

4077:

intersectional feminism, post-colonial studies, critical race studies, cancel culture, the concept of 'woke'-ness, and even the practice of inclusive writing

2330: 858: 466: 912:) would be notable as well: just as the (otherwise liberal) columnist and public intellectual Mencken's opinions, about what he thought were the New Deal's 841:

about those things. He has no academic background studying CRT, there is no evidence that he has published any peer-reviewed research on CRT or, honestly,

129:

in race relations, civil rights, or the English language. Most are just pundits whose careers depend on their ability to deliver spicy takes, resulting in

899:, sure, there are a number of people who've criticized this topic; however, our dear Mr. Lindsay is the only person I know of who's embarked on a career 4157:-centred public sphere more broadly, have much to gain from a serious engagement with what the latter have derisively termed 'identitarian Leftism' . ." 916:

in relation to certain democratic principles, were influential/of note in his day, despite these also not having been published in scholarly journals.--

529: 557:- James Lindsay has literally drawn up an entire line of flash cards breaking down the various contemporary left-wing meanings for terms like “racism.” 167: 1807: 4675: 4619: 4601: 4532: 4518: 4485: 4424:' narrative in shaming those who speak up about racism into silence and how this has a powerful historical precedent in the British context. - ". . 4373: 4241: 4191: 4052: 3923: 3894: 3869: 3850: 3625: 3506: 3492: 3448: 3419: 3389: 3001: 2987: 2896: 2870: 2280: 2127: 1844: 1552: 1530: 1500: 1478: 1456: 1337: 1167: 1141: 1099: 1061: 1003: 970: 925: 891: 821: 585: 432: 285: 133:

of current controversies. I think this section could be pared down subtantially, at least by getting rid of the opinions that aren't mentioned in a

2779: 2375:, by Aja Romano and Sean Illing and from their separate vantage points looking, respectively, at cyberculture and politics, argue that the use of ( 2305: 2251: 2221: 905:

he's termed "Woke theory" (ah or the "Woke motto," "Woke movement," "Woke ideology," "Woke project," or "Woke critical consciousness," and so forth

4715: 4437: 4144: 3467: 1263:"A featured article exemplifies Knowledge's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. 3461: 1419: 2925:: ". . woke ideas, meaning everything from feminism and racial equity to calls for decolonization . ." (also, links to "anti-woke activists." 1746: 1567:

A regular thread about whether WP should give coverage to "commentators' having used woke as an identifying term for anti-racism methodologies"

671: 1901: 1826: 1082:. By your logic, every Holocaust-denying racist notable enough for their own Knowledge page should be quoted alongside mainstream scholars of 3107:

bathed in an ocean of good thinking, which muzzles art in museums and words at universities on behalf of minorities that should not be hurt.

1949: 3309: 3224:"« Race et sciences sociales », de Stéphane Beaud et Gérard Noiriel : de la « lutte des classes » à la « lutte des races », et inversement" 484: 3601:

Neef – who'd formerly been director of the Canadian Opera Company – giving the indication that operas' rightly ought to become cancelled).

1080:

A Knowledge article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject

4610:

source analyzes both the term "woke" and the idea of "wokeness" or "woke ideology". Seems to fit well within the scope of this article. —

2883:. Based on the proposed text above, we can assume that the kind of commentary this would attract would be essentially unencyclopedic and 2185: 2155: 535: 226:

source is just another opinion essay, of which there are innumerable, criticizing "wokeness" or use of the term "woke". That makes it a

3304:

link is one to the expert Sach's take about these critics: He believes them conspiracy theorists and their fears akin to another era's

2758: 1863: 4540: 2112:

The linchpin of this paragraph is a WP:FORBESCON – essentially self-published – the rest are primary sources or unrelated to the topic

187: 161: 4697: 2465:

convenient label for a kind of ideology that has been with us for decades but it has increased in its prominence particularly in 2020

1281: 1255:

Are not FA quality thought to be obtainable through diligent often application of such guidelines as this? And, furthermore, doesn't

1794: 545: 4702:– is at our lede's 2nd graf. Now that a few sources have begun to show up for this neologism, I've offered a tentative improvement 4452:), it might prove difficult to find others thusly self-identifying. (Fwiw: For a precis of "identity politics" @ stanford.edu, see 2917: 2162: 1615: 1123:

published in their disciplines' journals and are, by this measure, not, for Wikipedian purposes, considered "wp:Fringe"; yet, it's

784:

is a fairly new player in the media sphere; I'm not sure how much weight we'd give it. (And it explicitly calls Lindsay & co.

626:: which is what "independent" means in the context at wp:RSes (as opposed to what's being claimed this guidelines says). Yet, per 573: 4392:

It appears that "woke left" has been used by those identifying as "liberal left" to distinguish the one from the other? - As see

3880:

revolution (you know, involving gender, orientation, et al) yes, post-Ferguson, I contributed mention of these Paris events here

3283:

necessary exclusivity, Guerrin (Macron/Beaud & Noiriel et al)'s not being hip to emulate seemingly Yankee-esque, as he says,

2256:

The reasons for not relying on opinion pieces have been explained on this page ad nauseam. As for the paragraph in question, you

497:

and various American news outlets. (Also, opinion pieces he's penned have been published in a variety of opinion magazines, too.)

268: 3464: 1733: 2724:

use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

2639:

what it means, I'm sure – it appears a very good many people still would be disinclined, themselves, at all to use it in their

3095:, political leaders often cite the United States. Not really to speak well of it. Rather to denounce a communitarized society, 1963: 747:

which seeks to debunk academic theories but was not itself academically vetted prior to publication. Their involvement in the

4449: 2631:

his use of the word even whilst he was otherwise-directly addressing its use. What does this tell us? That the word actually

3540:

Then, attempting helpful input regarding my question (not with xenophobia), you inquired, Who gives a toss about opinion of

1777: 4148: 4074:" and defines the phenomenon of anti-(term?) critiques such as Gérard Noiriel's as their concerning, perhaps disparately, " 3657:. Unless a reliable source directly links any of the ideas in question with the word "woke", naming them in the article is 3654: 3429: 3185: 2971: 1375:

the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue.

4340:(and other manifestations of grievance against the multifarious swaths of oppression) – usefully expand the encyclopedia ( 1377:

Scholars' and specialists' relevant writing is to be found in in academic journals and monographs, not op-eds and blogs. —

1293:(*) —— Ironically, the text of this wikiguideline happens to show how it accomplishes this by way of its own illustration: 988:'Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody. 644:

include press releases, material contained withinmaterial published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media....

567: 125:, among others. While these are all notable individuals in their own right, I'm not aware of any of them being considered 3581:

in English followed by its French translation (about America's allegedly disproportionate political correctness by which

1392: 1273: 1256: 1224: 3950: 2599:

I now know that my leeriness about other-editors-here's motives to have been illogical of me: Because I myself believed

1408: 221: 4711: 4671: 4597: 4514: 4463: 4383: 4369: 4187: 4013: 3890: 3846: 3621: 3488: 3415: 3327: 3319: 2997: 2949: 2754: 2340: 2247: 2071: 1588: 1580: 1575:

I've removed the RfC here and replaced it with an informal request to for help about a suggested topic for treatment.--

1548: 1496: 1452: 1333: 1137: 1057: 921: 667: 428: 1386: 247: 215: 146: 4502:

something!): When you subsequently come to refer to your contention w/o proper guidelines support, I'll simply write

2965: 2910: 2294:

where the text proposes a new hypothesis ("wokeness" as a scholarly methodology) unsupported by any actual citation.

907:). Because of this veritable mantra -- by which he'd become notable -- I concluded that his skewerings (of <w: --> 798:... independence from the topic is only one consideration; the other is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 3790:'It was a series of incidents that was extremely traumatic to our community and that all fell under what is called 700: 2385:

in each venue has been co-opted by the right-wing as a shorthand for— well, to quote our Knowledge article, fwiw:

1936: 949:

day, but if it had, his opinions wouldn't have been any more encyclopedic then. An encyclopedia article is not an

904: 4277: 549:

Cynical Theories: How Universities Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity — and Why This Harms Everybody

392: 295: 3092: 2456:

category of professed expertise. And by– for example, Harvard's Dr. Pinker, when asked about what he thought of

1272:

In the introduction to Knowledge's "Featured Article Criteria" page included a link to the guideline references

3986:

that, in cases when there exists non-established (as yet) neologisms, an article title-to-be be composed as a

1024:; and, since Lindsay has come, subsequently, to term CRT with what he calls "Woke" theory: at the point where 1015:

by whom? WP doesn't limit its coverage to such a standard at all, unless reasonably varying points of view of

4707: 4667: 4593: 4510: 4459: 4379: 4365: 4348:"). Although, in the hypothetical of were our present article in the future to become expanded from the word 4183: 4009: 3886: 3842: 3617: 3484: 3411: 3323: 3315: 3044:

I was asking what others might think could be considered of importance with concern to the topic of the word

2993: 2945: 2750: 2336: 2326: 2243: 2067: 1759: 1718: 1584: 1576: 1544: 1492: 1448: 1329: 1133: 1053: 917: 865: 854: 663: 462: 424: 197: 3473: 2627:

the word, and this because his having been asked by an interviewer about it; but, Pinker, himself, actually

1747:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/07/cancel-culture-and-problem-woke-capitalism/614086/

1047:, your regime would count Lindsay's critiques unnotable. Yet in circumstances where you were to find a book 833:

Moreover, I fear that you are conflating "critic" and "expert." I would not dispute that James Lindsay is a

805:

is a mathematician. Please show where his work in has been published in reliable sources ... (not counting

4396: 2923: 2647:

Hence, if Knowledge were to have an article on this catchall or rubric for critiques of any combination of

106: 4100:, I wonder if MDI's efforts in this regard aren't that removed from those of the Poynter institute: MDI's 3274:-style of social science worrysome – in its amalgam of "decolonialism," "race and gender studies," ah um " 3064:

As Google machine-translates Guerrin's column (that is, its first 58.65%, the remainder behind a paywall):

2712:"In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which 1072:

The goal of a Knowledge article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge

2115: 1683:

that fields such calls as those from employees concerned with some allegedly overwrought features within

512:

Lindsay & co.'s opinions have received notice within such independent RSes as those contained herein.

1602:" (in its adjectival sense). It's suggested it be enlarged to include pertinent material more-so about " 4703: 3460:

the paris opera's use of alleged blackface) do tend to garner some international attention: theguardian

3129:

self-censorship and the appalling oratorical precautions taken by academics and cultural leaders alike.

2876: 2841: 2263: 2258: 1506: 1484: 1277: 942:

as an opponent of vaccines. That doesn't make her a reliable source on them. Knowledge didn't exist in

708: 364:

This phenomenon is global rather than national. For instance, with regard to Middle East politics the

299: 203: 122: 38: 3999: 3998:'s inability to find a name for it (other than her resort to such as "as-yet-unnamed") in her article 3497:

Several of these sources are behind a paywall. Where do any of them say anything about "woke(ness)"? —

1173: 579: 4172: 4127:: ". . antiracist and other identitiarian ideologues' incessant rehearsal of the trope . ." - Penn's 4084: 4024: 3954: 3312:": no? I believe something or another will turn up, in normal usage, in any case, quite eventually). 976: 871: 681: 89: 2114:. Bejan's commentary and the rest aren't about the term "woke". "Wokeism" is undefined and POV. See 2022:

contributor Julia Wuench has expertise in emergent leadership training, columnist Jonothan Chait of

4135: 2322: 1151: 850: 806: 748: 458: 3874:

Not out of any synthesis but out of reading comprehension: At first my believing our page about a

3812: 3528:

Alexander Neef, Macron-appointed helmsperson of the Paris Opera, having said in an interview with

3286:"self-censorship and the appalling oratorical precautions taken by academics and cultural leaders" 2238:

of these sources might support appropriate content that could belong in a fully-formed article on

788:.) Additionally, news coverage of recent controversies like the grievance studies affair is often 4341: 4313: 4201: 3773: 2169: 1795:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/05/dear-white-people-please-read-white-fragility/

1734:"Academic Robin DiAngelo: 'We have to stop thinking about racism as someone who says the N-word'" 1447:'s statements on the topic of Opinion, cited above, and on which has been commented elsewhere.)-- 1404: 1236: 1075: 950: 845:

non-polemic work about CRT, and he has publicly declared that the social justice movement is his

704: 338: 110: 3938:

Proposed "split" for "contra wokeness" material (as otherwise tangential to our topic at hand?)

1179:

Note that my original statement, as I quoted, said, "Something approaching FA level coverage of

4260:"A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline ( 1883:"I saw identity politics tear the Occupy movement apart. Economic leftists must ditch wokeness" 696: 152:

Got rid of the sensationalist examples except for Cave's opinion which I find it to be unique.

4294:— Thus, inasmuch as our current page covers, in full detail, a sub-topic centered on the word 3463:(". . Guerrin, said France was 'slowly going down the American road . . ' "), thetimesoflondon 2964:

The first link is to a poorly-translated (and evidently plagiarized) article on a site called

323:: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view. 4615: 4528: 4481: 4333: 4321: 4317: 4237: 4221: 4209: 4205: 4048: 3919: 3865: 3674: 3502: 3444: 3385: 3370: 2983: 2892: 2866: 2276: 2181: 2151: 2123: 2106: 1920:"Opinion: Reading 'White Fragility' and canceling your friends won't make you an anti-racist" 1526: 1474: 1382: 1163: 1095: 999: 966: 896: 887: 817: 768: 649: 253: 243: 211: 183: 142: 126: 3184: 2795:... has been co-opted by the right wing as a shorthand for— to quote our Knowledge article: 2321:- you can't just take what someone says and declare it to be "wokeness" because you say so. 489:

Please do note that Lindsay's work has been reviewed in prestigious media outlets including

4573: 4168: 3270:(*)Note: What is here emphasized at the excerpt of Guerrin's bottom is that he/others find 2173: 2089: 1652: 1440: 1201: 1154:

was hardly a scientific investigation. (The selection process was unclear and there was no

1021: 870:

I'm confused why you copied your lengthy arguments in favor of a James Lindsay source from

789: 130: 4140: 8: 4506:— or better yet, will copy and paste the present, turquoised comment, by way of my reply. 4406: 4353: 3978:

yet have a wikientry associated with it; therefore, I suggest, humbly, that we create a

3362: 2774: 2300: 2217: 2093: 2006:

London-based staff writer Helen Lewis has written a book on the history of feminism, the

1982: 780: 648:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established

640:(those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. xamples of 171: 81: 76: 71: 59: 4453: 2226:

Procedural question. I hope that respondents, if they would, might comment (in light of

4153: 4128: 4036: 3399: 2720:. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to 2447:

facts readily available to even the most cursory observation; no, rather, it is people

2231: 2143: 2054: 1684: 1680: 711:

don't cite a single opinion piece, though the topics are/were definitely controversial.

677: 385: 328: 157: 4224:

segregating critical voices into their own article. Describing any of the above as an

2053:

The small number of the opinion pieces above are suggested as being appropriate under

1543:

of n.y. city; when? becauses of primary-source gingerliness, year must remain blank.--

4659: 4647: 4632: 4577: 4421: 4378:

Agree what's best is a generic description that doesn't imply any slant whatsoever.--

4337: 4329: 4309: 4220:. Any noteworthy critiques belong on those pages. What you're proposing looks like a 4217: 4197: 3955:

MDI (non-governmental organizational, based in London, the Media Diversity Institute)

3609: 2139: 1845:"Linguist John McWhorter Says 'White Fragility' Is Condescending Toward Black People" 1640: 1514: 1488: 1412: 1370: 1216: 1207: 1067: 954: 627: 561: 350: 227: 4065: 3585:

Guerrin's believes French culture might be becoming overly influenced); however, in

4643: 4611: 4524: 4477: 4473: 4233: 4044: 4028: 3915: 3861: 3725: 3670: 3498: 3440: 3381: 2979: 2888: 2862: 2847:

commentators' having used woke as an identifying term for anti-racism methodologies

2272: 2177: 2147: 2119: 2063: 1648: 1522: 1470: 1466: 1378: 1159: 1106: 1091: 1087: 1008: 995: 962: 910:

an awakened consciousness among the oppressed to no longer buy into this oppression

908:

wokism wokeness awakening wokery the wokerati the wokish the wokous ah, okay, okay

883: 813: 802: 785: 774: 744: 718:

sources for one person's opinion or another. WP articles should be based mainly on

405: 239: 231: 207: 179: 138: 94: 4104:

that it "gathers the latest guidelines, studies and other resources" – with these

3990:"descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even ifsomewhat long or awkward" 2880: 1623:

departments. Should these be thought tangential our Knowledge entry's coverage of

1195:

opinion pieces?" (emphasis added). User Sangdeboeuf's assertion confuses me as to

336:

and also to add other reliable sources that represent a different point of view.

4663: 4581: 4565: 4561: 4229: 4040: 3912:

of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.

3903: 3857: 3777: 3769: 3658: 3358: 2884: 2731: 2318: 2291: 2209: 2201: 2101: 1676: 480: 417: 355: 344: 102: 2942:," to some panelist testimony @ the NH statehouse that incl. mr. james lindsay) 619:"indie" of Lindsay, in that it's edited and largely written by him; however, WD 206:

of more material about Maher for the reasons cited above. Please discuss here. —

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4651: 4636: 4553: 4352:

to developments an overall movement-become-associated-with-its-name (including

4325: 4213: 3832: 3791: 3745: 2853:. An indiscriminate collection of op-eds, blogs, polemics, etc. that happen to 2850: 2771: 2477:

But, hmmm— Who came up with the idea of representing any one or combination of

2297: 2227: 2213: 1937:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/541089-wake-up-america-laughter-is-healing

1668: 1664: 1660: 1644: 1636: 1632: 1147: 935: 719: 366: 304: 134: 4448:

journalist / sometimes-pundit Zeeshan Aleem who does (Aleem's calling for the

3713:

Onishi's third graf references "high-profile journalists' " pushback against "

3577:

Guerrin–Neef brouhaha (the one I cited toward the top of the thread), he used

1627:

or not? If yes, I suggest something like the following for possible inclusion.

1176:) claims I made an assertion in the thread here which he "showed to be false." 4655: 4629: 4569: 4557: 4393: 4271: 4261: 3983: 3856:

Connecting any of these ideas/statements to the idea of "woke(ness)" is pure

3714: 3546:

d'homme à homme entre les gentilshommes M Guerrin et Neef de l'Opéra de Paris

3478: 2858: 2765: 2665: 2314: 2268: 2196: 1902:"Robin DiAngelo's 'White Fragility' ignores the differences within whiteness" 1444: 1423: 1301: 1155: 1083: 944: 762: 454: 450: 413: 409: 175: 153: 4472:

You're still citing opinion pieces to make your case about "woke". I really

4131: 2451:, who, when critiquing some combination of these phenomena, have been using 1090:

like Holocaust denial, anti-vax, flat Earth, or those of Lindsay & co. —

4064:

As for notability concerns, MDI's Zorro Maplestone points, for example, to

3764: 3721:

Michel Guerrin – Onishi's saying these-mentioned pols/journos&thinkers

3395: 756: 751:

directly links them to the topic, meaning they are not independent from it.

688: 657: 348:

are reliable sources that present right wing points of view. Left-leaning

308: 114: 4415: 3818:'...importation' in France of the 'American-style Black question'......... 1407:– are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects." Or 294:

One of the perennial issues that arises during editor disputes is how the

4585: 4549: 4425: 4105: 3147:), Noiriel's noting that race is not recognized by the French government. 2534:, as well: By saying its use is by Conservatives, maybe those critiquing 354:

might also be cited. The appropriate balance can be determined from the

3994:; therefore, in light of the foregoing – and, also, to scholar-activist 3205: 2134: 2034:

contributor John McWhorter is a linguist and social critic at Columbia,

1465:

is laughable. I've already responded to most of these arguments; try to

1439:

by the way, such opinion piece as op-eds currently cited at the article

837:

of "wokeness/CRT/whatever." I would strongly dispute that Lindsay is an

4491:

record, match your "re-'s" in mention: How —— <initiate message: -->

4302:- direction "summary-style" guideline, creation of a parent article to 4270:, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline ( 3995: 3665:

topics have been noted by reliable sources doesn't make his opinion on

3536:: Certain operatic "works will no doubt disappear from the repertoire." 2857:

the term aren't enough to show that this expanded meaning of "woke" is

754:... most of are not reliable for factual content. I already mentioned 476: 372: 98: 4276:) listed in the box on the right; and – It is not excluded under the 2092:

and there has been no prior discussion of the text in question as per

2042:

opinion columnist writes nonfiction/fiction and teaches at UC Irvine,

2038:

contibutor Wilfred Reilly is a political scientist at Kentucky State,

3785: 3781: 3740: 3724:

warn that progressive American ideas — specifically on race, gender,

3717:" he'd referenced in his second graf: absolutely certainly including 3655:"Will American Ideas Tear France Apart? Some of Its Leaders Think So" 3590: 3305: 3186:"Will American Ideas Tear France Apart? Some of Its Leaders Think So" 2267:

it, I reverted it. There's nothing significant to preserve. Instead,

2046:

opinion contributor Dennis M. Powell is a management consultant, the

1827:"Is the Anti-Racism Training Industry Just Peddling White Supremacy?" 1672: 1671:

Raluca Bejan and others. In January 2021, a confidential "anti-woke"

118: 47: 17: 3883:

woke leftism of American campuses and its attendant cancel culture."

1808:"First, Listen. Then, Learn: Anti-Racism Resources For White People" 4640: 4101: 4002:– I humbly propose for the fulfillment of these purposes the title 2523:) term themselves the former designation, but informally. Mormons ( 1719:"People Are Marching Against Racism. They're Also Reading About It" 1603: 1034:; yet, of course, your interpretation of guidelines would preclude 286:

Knowledge:Neutrality of sources#Reliable sources may be non-neutral

4441: 3483:

about the franco-american alleged contagion of woke-tarianitis).--

1030:

is used in that article, it could, and well ought, to bluelink --

2050:

Celia Walden's beats include women's issues and social etiquette.

3826: 3822: 2559:

in their analysis of the burgeoning "movement" of people – with

3085:(which condemns inappropriate creators or inappropriate works). 2014:

Amna Nawaz is an Emmy award-winning broadcast journalist, the

3589:

Guerrin's specific editorial about Neef and, e.g., operatic "

2903:

Should we use e.g. nytimes quote about "woke american ideas"?

1659:

as an identifying term for to their methodologies, including

326:

A frequent example that arises in this type of discussion is

2530:

It appears that such a deprecation may be afoot with regard

1964:"On Activist Scholarship: An Interview with Helen Pluckrose" 1211:

use of these opinion pieces? Or, baldly, that FA quality is

4476:

to the feedback you've received on this talk page at all. —

4304: 4005:

Movement against de-colonialism and identitarian ideologies

3946: 3544:

Guerrin?; and, I demonstrated that, concerning coverage of

3077:

Namely decolonialism, studies on race or gender, the words

1778:"How anti-racism is a treatment for the 'cancer' of racism" 1599: 1461:

The idea that I'm the one who needs to express myself more

1247:

essential to articles which treat controversial subjects."(

1026: 4039:

as well. Which material specifically are you proposing to

4023:

Opinion pieces like Weiss's and advocacy sources like the

2913:- "'Woke' American Ideas Are a Threat, French Leaders Say" 2603:

to be a used and useful shorthand for any combinations of

2018:

opinion-piece writer Jonathan Capehart analyzes politics,

1998:

Elizabeth A. Harris on its books-and-publishing beat, the

1367:

FA quality is often achieved through use of opinion pieces

1312:

Who gives a toss what Harold Geneen's opinion is? Answer:

739:... from what I know, Lindsay & Pluckrose's work does 2168:

might be a good start for expanding coverage of the term

416:..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate 4068:

by scholars Eléonore Lépinard & Sarah Mazouz about "

4033:

terminology used by individuals in this counter-movement

3963:

Observatory of Decolonialism and Identitarian Ideologies

3573:

Guerrin's editorial subsequent to one(s) concerning the

2937:

leading to commentary by bari weiss; @ <chuckles: -->

2010:

Sanneh Kelefa's beat is primarily race and culture, PBS

1282:

Knowledge:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources

4254: 3091:

It is true that, in the identity debate, fueled by the

1043:

credentialed at a Ph.D. level in, very specifically, a

3593:," Guerrin referenced a term also-of-American-origin: 3308:

or some such ( —— hmmm! How about the wikititle "the

2460:

culture, his saying in off-hand fashion that it's a "

1864:"The Dehumanizing Condescension of 'White Fragility'" 1535:

Leaves holes: Who? Douthat, Ross; what? neologism of

1205:? Or, I'd said that FA quality is achievable through 4624:

Thanks, User Sangdeboeuf. I've rmvd article content

4414:

varsity(Cambridge indie student newspaper est. 1947)

3361:

of saying you don't have a proposal. Talk pages are

3204:

Noiriel, Gérard; Beaud, Stéphane (1 February 2021).

2635:

considered impolite enough that – whereas everybody

412:

wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist

3701:from it doesn't portend well for a contention that 2062:"; and also see WP's Neutral-Point-of-View page at 1434:of the English language, as, in its first entry at 994:

I think that tells us everything we need to know. —

230:for such criticism. To avoid original research and 4420:"Eliane Thoma-Stemmet Explores the Impact of the ' 4132:"Antiracism: a neoliberal alternative to a left." 3697:editors' having recast Onishi's headline to omit 2367:myself (and, with apologies, if I seem prolix): 1631:As of the early 2020s, works of such thinkers on 903:as a single-issue warrior against---- well, what 3776:, challenged the official dismissal of race and 2581:believe there has been any such social movement! 2519:to talk of themselves. Quakers (more correctly: 1655:courses, certain scholars and commentators used 1172:In a thread further downpage, User Sangdeboeuf ( 979:, the blurb at the end of Lindsay's piece says: 632:Self-published material is characterized by the 370:presents a view of events that is distinct from 174:. Overall I don't see how the source represents 4523:This is explicitly against policy; see below. — 4291:separate articles all treating the same subject 984:is the founder of New Discourses and currently 269:Knowledge:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources 234:, we need independent sources that discuss the 4539:As, @ fivethirtyeight, Perry Bacon Jr. (parts1 4071:resistance to the concept of intersectionality 3780:. ctivists prevented the staging of a play by 3139:At one point, I thought to add to our article: 2679:to use Knowledge to increase usage of the term 2138:'s opening statement is not showing up on the 1409:Knowledge:Verifiability#Self-published sources 1111:...fringe views likethose of Lindsay & co. 830:what "independent" means in the context of RS. 790:disproportionate to their overall significance 3809:100...scholars wrote an open letter.......... 3369:, one day. And editorials like Guerrin's are 2992:Yes (I've struck the errant link; thanks). -- 2919:- "Republicans Are Trying to Outlaw Wokeness" 2503:the term on their own terms: This is how the 391:Knowledge articles are required to present a 4289:"A content fork is the creation of multiple 3203: 1267:it presents views fairly and without bias... 4115:find support for terming the ideology e.g. 4666:," which I've referenced to 538's bacon.-- 3365:for speculation about what may or may not 2831:virtue signaling within society's general 2449:from pretty much all political persuasions 2421:virtue signaling within society's general 692:is published by a conservative think tank. 4628:"woke's" synonymity "with such things as 3710:out of left field, if you pardon the pun: 3410:ed.-in-chief, too. For what it's worth.-- 3176: 2623:Prof. Pinker, for example, only referred 2242:? Thanks. -- The Requester of Commentary 2002:Nosheen Iqbal is its women's editor, the 1861: 1369:, as I showed with examples. The part of 447:reputation for fact-checking and accuracy 2707:, or use the term within other articles. 2675:"rticles are often created in an attempt 4356:): then, yes, yet "another" article on 4354:notable criticisms thereof, per wp:CRIT 3744:of American campuses and its attendant 2359:Yes, as promised, I'm going to offer a 1712: 1710: 1679:, known for her critique of wokeism: a 1675:was founded in the U.K. by the scholar 1420:cited in additional third-party sources 714:... Most of the sources you linked are 624:indie of eg the scholars-developing-CRT 14: 3661:. The fact that Guerrin's opinions on 3182: 1989:, a publication of her own university. 1947: 1716: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4287:Then in the direction, per wp:FORK: 3183:Onishi, Norimitsu (9 February 2021). 3075:not Google or Amazon, but the ideas. 2472:combating the open exchange of ideas 2204:here. You say that you want to use a 1950:"Why I started an anti-woke helpline" 1824: 1731: 3835:...received extensive news coverage. 3784:to protest the wearing of masks and 3516:referred, I proffered an opinion by 3099:society brought into a community"-- 2732:wp:Non-judgmental descriptive titles 2575:Knowledge articles talkpage–– and I 2170:as a "lens" for viewing other topics 1717:Harris, Elizabeth A. (5 June 2020). 1707: 1086:. We don't give undue prominence to 401: 25: 4164:Movement against woke progressivism 3524:Michel Guerrin in the aftermath to 2315:fundamental policy on living people 1732:Iqbal, Nosheen (16 February 2019). 1393:Knowledge:Describing points of view 1274:Category:Knowledge content policies 1257:Knowledge:Featured article criteria 1225:Knowledge:Describing points of view 676:As I replied to a nearly identical 321:Reliable sources may be non-neutral 170:and the tone of Cave's comments is 23: 4698:Another place that is unsourced — 4650:," replacing with, specifically, " 4499:are very often of prime importance 3093:so-called religious separatism law 2716:no accepted short-hand term exists 1948:Walden, Celia (17 February 2021). 1880: 1805: 1757: 551:Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay 24: 4726: 4474:don't think you've been listening 4245:edited 22:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 2922:columbia economist jeffrey sachs 2363:– below! – but, first, I want to 2292:unacceptable synthesis of sources 1981:Of course, wanting to avoid, per 1899: 792:and should be handled cautiously. 656:has previously been published by 3768:Mass protests in France against 3435:, and neither of them are about 3081:(awakened to discrimination) or 2970:. I assume you meant to link to 2931:(note - the quote's hypertext @ 1862:McWhorter, John (15 July 2020). 1825:Chait, Jonathan (16 July 2020). 1598:The article is presently about " 701:Apollo 15 postal covers incident 29: 4450:"need of an identitiarian left" 3456:- well, guerrin's opinions (eg 3216: 3197: 2825:internet call-out culture, and 2415:internet call-out culture, and 1956: 1941: 1930: 1912: 1893: 1874: 1855: 934:out there who are not experts. 695:... Taking a few examples from 131:disproportionate media coverage 4031:by themselves. Using the same 3322:) 19:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)-- 3055:editor-in-chief Michel Guerrin 3029:arise for "contra 'wokeness'." 2877:removed the "commentary" label 2851:independent, secondary sources 2234:section) if they believe that 2206:small number of opinion pieces 1837: 1818: 1799: 1788: 1770: 1760:"The Fight to Redefine Racism" 1751: 1740: 1725: 1583:) 15:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)-- 274:to the editor's point of view. 238:as a topic in its own right. — 13: 1: 2176:cited in the proposed text? — 2172:. So why were neither it nor 2084:: the above statement is not 1614:Independent coverage such as 957:) opinions, but a summary of 408:appropriate, as in "Feminist 176:the most prominent viewpoints 162:23:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC) 147:21:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC) 4440:": Although I'd come across 4436:About self-identified e.g. " 4196:We already have articles on 3951:following information (LINK) 2879:from the section now titled 2621:but never themselves use it! 2584:by-now-only-too-common term. 2577:find that people hereabouts 1432:American Heritage Dictionary 455:merits any weight whatsoever 7: 4360:(in this expanded meaning) 3786:dark makeup by white actors 3557:To the question of whether 3548:, those caring include the 3424:I see only two mentions of 3206:"Who do you think you are?" 3145:éveillé aux discriminations 2976:article by Norimitsu Onishi 2590:OK: Now, I'm getting to my 1521:, as I explained already. — 1280:, of which a subsection is 697:WP:FA § Culture and society 660:, independent publications. 10: 4731: 4716:17:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC) 4676:21:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC) 4620:00:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC) 4602:22:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC) 4533:00:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC) 4519:17:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC) 4486:21:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 4468:18:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 4388:16:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 4374:15:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 4242:20:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC) 4192:18:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC) 4053:04:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC) 4018:22:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC) 3924:21:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC) 3895:16:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC) 3870:19:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC) 3851:18:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC) 3762:...echoes of the American 3759:, from Onishi, if wished: 3679:22:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC) 3626:17:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC) 3561:Guerrin has used the word 3507:00:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC) 3493:19:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC) 3449:00:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC) 3420:22:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC) 3390:20:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC) 3332:20:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC) 3118:Le Prophète et la pandémie 3002:19:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC) 2988:23:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 2954:22:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 2897:16:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 2871:21:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC) 2780:20:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC) 2759:18:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC) 2345:15:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC) 2331:02:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC) 2306:01:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC) 2281:02:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC) 2252:22:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC) 2222:21:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC) 2186:21:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC) 2156:23:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC) 2128:21:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC) 2076:19:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC) 1952:– via www.telegraph.co.uk. 1736:– via www.theguardian.com. 1593:18:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC) 1553:17:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC) 1531:00:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC) 1501:20:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC) 1479:19:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC) 1457:19:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC) 1430:-dot-com, as based on the 1387:22:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC) 1338:19:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC) 1314:Apparently, it's Canada's 1278:Knowledge:Reliable sources 1168:18:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 1142:17:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC) 709:Same-sex marriage in Spain 319:the source's neutrality. 298:policy interacts with the 262:just another opinion essay 135:reliable, secondary source 4508:<conclude message: --> 4497:dominate, opinion pieces 4029:enough to show notability 4025:Media Diversity Institute 3974:—— This counter-movement 3469:, canada'stheglobeandmail 3278:" (for which he uses the 1395:says that "At Knowledge, 1284:, which, in turn, reads: 1100:21:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC) 1062:18:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC) 1004:21:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 977:Talk:Critical race theory 971:20:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 951:indiscriminate collection 926:16:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 892:03:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 872:Talk:Critical race theory 859:01:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC) 822:22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC) 743:meet requirements. They 682:Talk:Critical race theory 672:19:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC) 485:23:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 467:19:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 433:17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 248:22:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC) 216:00:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC) 188:00:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC) 172:heated and sensationalist 166:Maybe, but the source is 121:(!), and the redoubtable 95:§ Reception and criticism 4409:' for racial groups. . . 4253:direction: According to 4136:Dialectical Anthropology 3737:as contamination by the 3394:Because, I believe, per 3367:turn up, in normal usage 3289:. (For what it's worth.) 3020:CLICK UPPER-RIGHT MARGIN 2881:§ Reception and analysis 1483:Well, sir, your removal 1215:achieved through use of 1187:only achievable through 1152:grievance studies affair 749:grievance studies affair 4708:Hodgdon's secret garden 4668:Hodgdon's secret garden 4594:Hodgdon's secret garden 4511:Hodgdon's secret garden 4460:Hodgdon's secret garden 4380:Hodgdon's secret garden 4366:Hodgdon's secret garden 4314:intersectional feminism 4308:– as well as parent to 4255:N|notability guidelines 4202:intersectional feminism 4184:Hodgdon's secret garden 4010:Hodgdon's secret garden 3953:by Zorro Maplestone of 3899:What you're describing 3887:Hodgdon's secret garden 3843:Hodgdon's secret garden 3774:killing of George Floyd 3715:social science theories 3618:Hodgdon's secret garden 3485:Hodgdon's secret garden 3412:Hodgdon's secret garden 3324:Hodgdon's secret garden 3316:Hodgdon's secret garden 2994:Hodgdon's secret garden 2946:Hodgdon's secret garden 2819:political correctness, 2751:Hodgdon's secret garden 2688:"Some neologisms can be 2409:political correctness, 2337:Hodgdon's secret garden 2244:Hodgdon's secret garden 2135:Hodgdon's secret garden 2068:Hodgdon's secret garden 1585:Hodgdon's secret garden 1577:Hodgdon's secret garden 1545:Hodgdon's secret garden 1493:Hodgdon's secret garden 1449:Hodgdon's secret garden 1330:Hodgdon's secret garden 1276:, of which a member is 1134:Hodgdon's secret garden 1054:Hodgdon's secret garden 918:Hodgdon's secret garden 866:Hodgdon's secret garden 705:Macedonia (terminology) 664:Hodgdon's secret garden 425:Hodgdon's secret garden 339:The Wall Street Journal 198:Hodgdon's secret garden 4590: 4431: 4284: 3992: 3967: 3945:: The current article 3373:. Why do we care what 3371:not reliable for facts 3288: 3149: 3136: 3135: 3097: 3070: 3063: 3051:For more granularity: 2940:most lunatic of voices 2930: 2747: 2728: 1979: 1405:cognitive perspectives 1307: 1271: 1237:cognitive perspectives 1115: 986:promoting his new book 811: 699:, our articles on the 642:self-published sources 422: 127:subject-matter experts 97:cites the opinions of 4546: 4418: 4334:political correctness 4322:critical race studies 4318:post-colonial studies 4279:What Knowledge is not 4258: 4210:critical race studies 4206:post-colonial studies 4043:from this article? -- 3988: 3959: 3813:Pierre-André Taguieff 3284: 3210:Le Monde diplomatique 3140: 3105: 3073: 3066: 3065: 3059: 2926: 2849:needs to be based on 2729: 2661: 1629: 1294: 1260: 1125:the scientific method 1104: 1076:What Knowledge is not 1038:article from linking 897:User talk:Sangdeboeuf 778:are opinion sources. 732:use doesn't mean we 685: 654:in the relevant field 650:subject-matter expert 451:self-published source 393:neutral point of view 389: 296:neutral point of view 254:user talk:Sangdeboeuf 42:of past discussions. 4656:progressive politics 4574:critical race theory 4230:neutral descriptions 4177:Anti-equalitarianism 4139:42, 105–115 (2018). 3357:That's an extremely 3259:journalists and the 2859:sufficiently notable 2705:article on the topic 2643:language, let alone 2430:(All of these items 2319:prohibited synthesis 2144:too long for Legobot 1994:About the rest: the 1653:sensitivity training 1441:critical race theory 1415:") itself cites the 1022:critical race theory 932:single-issue warrior 728:... Just because we 4407:restorative justice 4151:in the UK, and the 3669:topic noteworthy. — 3406:, but also that of 3230:. 11 February 2021. 2801:identity politics, 2564:year will indicate. 2391:identity politics, 2323:NorthBySouthBaranof 2174:Jeffrey Sachs' blog 2140:list of active RfCs 2104:. As I said when I 1966:. 16 December 2020. 1373:you left out says, 1365:The false part was 975:As was the case at 851:NorthBySouthBaranof 459:NorthBySouthBaranof 406:in-text attribution 202:I've reverted your 4446:(and other venues) 4129:Adolph L. Reed Jr. 4027:are generally not 3911: 3904:improper synthesis 3772:, inspired by the 3734:...Next sentence: 3659:improper synthesis 3191:The New York Times 2494:has such currency 2110:from the article, 1721:– via NYTimes.com. 1685:diversity training 1509:, just because we 1318:The Globe and Mail 1013:knowledge accepted 987: 959:accepted knowledge 953:of noteworthy (or 930:There are lots of 745:authored a polemic 449:. This makes it a 420:believed that...". 386:Knowledge:PARTISAN 334:The New York Times 329:The New York Times 4648:virtue signalling 4633:identity politics 4578:intersectionality 4422:Grievance Culture 4338:identity politics 4330:inclusive writing 4310:intersectionality 4218:inclusive writing 4198:intersectionality 4142:uday jain in the 3909: 3884: 3858:original research 3831:book critical of 3805: 3758: 3728:— are undermining 3649:The title of the 3614: 3345: 3344: 3242: 3241: 3025:I believe a term 3023: 2745: 2740: 2721: 2713: 2708: 2698: 2689: 2684: 2676: 2525:Latter-day Saints 2355: 2142:, I suspect it's 2116:§ Use vs. mention 2100:as off-topic and 2086:neutral and brief 2016:Washington Post's 1978: 1977: 1881:Reilly, Wilfred. 1641:Robin J. DiAngelo 1326: 1068:Knowledge:Purpose 985: 847:ideological enemy 720:secondary sources 601: 600: 471:Agreed regarding 381: 380: 351:The Village Voice 315:and reliability-- 90:Criticism section 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4722: 4644:call-out culture 4639:, race-baiting, 4342:wp:SUMMARY STYLE 4249:Exactly. In the 4246: 4085:Media Div. Inst. 4035:in the title is 3881: 3827:Gérard Noiriel's 3823:Stéphane Beaud's 3799: 3752: 3726:post-colonialism 3605: 3532:weekly magazine 3520:editor-in-chief 3280:American-English 3232: 3231: 3220: 3214: 3213: 3201: 3195: 3194: 3188: 3180: 3159: 3158: 3018: 3014: 3013: 2844: 2807:cancel culture, 2778: 2743: 2738: 2719: 2711: 2701: 2695: 2687: 2682: 2674: 2397:cancel culture, 2371:Two articles in 2351: 2304: 2266: 2261: 2158: 2137: 2109: 2107:removed the text 2096:. Failing that, 2082:Procedural close 1996:New York Times's 1968: 1967: 1960: 1954: 1953: 1945: 1939: 1934: 1928: 1927: 1916: 1910: 1909: 1906:The Conversation 1897: 1891: 1890: 1878: 1872: 1871: 1859: 1853: 1852: 1841: 1835: 1834: 1822: 1816: 1815: 1803: 1797: 1792: 1786: 1785: 1774: 1768: 1767: 1758:Sanneh, Kelefa. 1755: 1749: 1744: 1738: 1737: 1729: 1723: 1722: 1714: 1690: 1689: 1649:Ta-Nehisi Coates 1517:doesn't mean we 1310: 1227:: At Knowledge, 1107:User:Sangdeboeuf 1045:social "science" 1009:User:Sangdeboeuf 991: 983: 948: 869: 803:James A. Lindsay 539:Cynical Theories 508: 507: 314: 300:reliable sources 281: 280: 201: 168:a music magazine 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4730: 4729: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4700: 4658:that emphasize 4608:Fivethirtyeight 4582:systemic sexism 4566:systemic racism 4562:white privilege 4426:Afua . . Hirsch 4244: 4037:unavoidably POV 3940: 3910:different parts 3908:do not combine 3778:systemic racism 3770:police violence 3739:out-of-control 3610:Who's on first? 3477:in his near-to 3472:, portugal'ssol 3378:editor-in-chief 3359:long-winded way 3346: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3222: 3221: 3217: 3202: 3198: 3181: 3177: 3164: 3031: 2905: 2840: 2769: 2466: 2357: 2295: 2262: 2257: 2133: 2132: 2105: 2040:The Independent 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1962: 1961: 1957: 1946: 1942: 1935: 1931: 1924:The Independent 1918: 1917: 1913: 1900:Bejan, Raluca. 1898: 1894: 1879: 1875: 1860: 1856: 1843: 1842: 1838: 1823: 1819: 1806:Wuench, Julia. 1804: 1800: 1793: 1789: 1776: 1775: 1771: 1756: 1752: 1745: 1741: 1730: 1726: 1715: 1708: 1695: 1677:Helen Pluckrose 1569: 1537:woke capitalism 1515:primary sources 1424:a business guru 1299:Thought du Jour 1246: 989: 981: 961:on a subject. — 943: 863: 602: 513: 445:has no evident 418:Barry Goldwater 382: 345:National Review 312: 307:interacts with 288: 195: 178:on the topic. — 107:Brendan O'Neill 103:Ayaan Hirsi Ali 92: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4728: 4699: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4652:cancel culture 4637:cancel culture 4591: 4554:cancel culture 4537: 4536: 4535: 4493:Although they 4457: 4438:identitiarians 4434: 4433: 4432: 4390: 4326:cancel culture 4285: 4222:WP:CONTENTFORK 4214:cancel culture 4181: 4159: 4109: 4081: 4062: 3939: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3902: 3840: 3833:racial studies 3797: 3792:cancel culture 3750: 3746:cancel culture 3711: 3668: 3664: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3615: 3603: 3595:cancel culture 3437:this editorial 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3313: 3293: 3290: 3268: 3265: 3240: 3239: 3234: 3233: 3215: 3196: 3174: 3173: 3170: 3169: 3166: 3165: 3162: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3137: 3083:cancel culture 3049: 3033: 3032: 3017: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 2967:Lovebylife.com 2957: 2956: 2943: 2920: 2914: 2904: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2873: 2856: 2813:race-baiting, 2782: 2749:That is all.-- 2619:what it means 2592:mea culpa— (!) 2587: 2586: 2585: 2565: 2552: 2528: 2475: 2464: 2428: 2403:race-baiting, 2356: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2333: 2308: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2159: 1976: 1975: 1970: 1969: 1955: 1940: 1929: 1926:. 3 July 2020. 1911: 1892: 1873: 1854: 1836: 1817: 1798: 1787: 1784:. 8 July 2020. 1769: 1764:The New Yorker 1750: 1739: 1724: 1705: 1704: 1701: 1700: 1697: 1696: 1693: 1681:Discord server 1669:Wilfred Reilly 1665:John McWhorter 1661:Jonathan Chait 1645:Carol Anderson 1637:Ibram X. Kendi 1633:race relations 1596: 1595: 1573: 1568: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1520: 1512: 1443:, or, such as 1397:points of view 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1327: 1308: 1291: 1288: 1259:advise that — 1253: 1240: 1229:points of view 1220: 1177: 1148:Google Scholar 1116: 973: 960: 936:Jenny McCarthy 881: 876:New Discourses 861: 831: 824: 742: 735: 731: 717: 613:New Discourses 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 582: 576: 570: 564: 558: 552: 542: 532: 515: 514: 511: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 473:New Discourses 443:New Discourses 439:New Discourses 379: 378: 367:Jerusalem Post 290: 289: 284: 279: 278: 277: 265: 258:New Discourses 237: 228:primary source 223:New Discourses 193: 192: 191: 190: 111:Douglas Murray 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4727: 4718: 4717: 4713: 4709: 4705: 4677: 4673: 4669: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4649: 4645: 4642: 4638: 4634: 4631: 4627: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4617: 4613: 4609: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4599: 4595: 4589: 4587: 4583: 4579: 4575: 4571: 4570:woke ideology 4567: 4563: 4559: 4558:racial equity 4555: 4551: 4544: 4541: 4538: 4534: 4530: 4526: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4507: 4505: 4500: 4496: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4483: 4479: 4475: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4455: 4451: 4447: 4445: 4439: 4435: 4430: 4427: 4423: 4416: 4413: 4412: 4410: 4408: 4402: 4400: 4395: 4394:Bret Stephens 4391: 4389: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4359: 4355: 4351: 4347: 4343: 4339: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4315: 4311: 4307: 4306: 4301: 4297: 4293: 4292: 4286: 4283: 4281: 4280: 4275: 4274: 4269: 4265: 4264: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4247: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4179: 4178: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4165: 4160: 4158: 4155: 4152: 4150: 4146: 4145:New Socialist 4141: 4138: 4137: 4133: 4130: 4126: 4122: 4120: 4114: 4110: 4107: 4103: 4099: 4098:civil society 4095: 4091: 4086: 4082: 4079: 4078: 4073: 4072: 4067: 4063: 4060: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4006: 4001: 3997: 3991: 3987: 3985: 3981: 3977: 3973: 3969: 3966: 3964: 3958: 3956: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3925: 3921: 3917: 3913: 3905: 3900: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3879: 3878: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3838: 3837: 3834: 3829: 3828: 3824: 3820: 3819: 3814: 3811: 3810: 3804: 3803: 3798: 3796: 3795: 3793: 3788: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3775: 3771: 3767: 3766: 3757: 3756: 3751: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3743: 3742: 3733: 3732: 3729: 3727: 3720: 3716: 3712: 3709: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3676: 3672: 3666: 3662: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3613: 3611: 3604: 3602: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3567: 3565: 3564: 3560: 3553: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3538: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3480: 3474: 3471: 3468: 3465: 3462: 3459: 3455: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3432: 3427: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3377: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3333: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3317: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3298: 3294: 3291: 3287: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3229: 3225: 3219: 3211: 3207: 3200: 3192: 3187: 3179: 3175: 3172: 3168: 3167: 3161: 3160: 3148: 3146: 3138: 3134: 3132: 3130: 3125: 3121: 3119: 3114: 3110: 3108: 3104: 3102: 3096: 3094: 3089: 3087: 3086: 3084: 3080: 3072: 3069: 3062: 3057: 3054: 3050: 3047: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3021: 3016: 3015: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2975: 2969: 2968: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2941: 2936: 2935: 2929: 2924: 2921: 2918: 2915: 2912: 2911: 2907: 2906: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2854: 2852: 2848: 2843: 2838: 2836: 2835: 2830: 2829: 2824: 2823: 2818: 2817: 2812: 2811: 2806: 2805: 2800: 2799: 2794: 2790: 2789: 2783: 2781: 2776: 2773: 2767: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2746: 2741: 2736: 2734: 2733: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2718: 2717: 2709: 2706: 2699: 2694: 2693: 2685: 2681: 2680: 2672: 2670: 2668: 2667: 2660: 2658: 2657: 2652: 2651: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2613: 2608: 2607: 2602: 2597: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2582: 2580: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2544: 2539: 2538: 2533: 2529: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2511:, of course. 2510: 2506: 2502: 2497: 2493: 2488: 2487: 2482: 2481: 2476: 2473: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2459: 2454: 2450: 2445: 2441: 2440: 2435: 2434: 2429: 2426: 2425: 2420: 2419: 2414: 2413: 2408: 2407: 2402: 2401: 2396: 2395: 2390: 2389: 2384: 2380: 2379: 2374: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2366: 2362: 2354: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2309: 2307: 2302: 2299: 2293: 2288: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2265: 2260: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2198: 2194: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2165: 2160: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2136: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2108: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2090:WP:RFCNEUTRAL 2087: 2083: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2056: 2051: 2049: 2048:Independent's 2045: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2028:Intelligencer 2026:(magazine's) 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1992: 1990: 1988: 1984: 1965: 1959: 1951: 1944: 1938: 1933: 1925: 1921: 1915: 1907: 1903: 1896: 1888: 1884: 1877: 1869: 1865: 1858: 1850: 1846: 1840: 1832: 1831:Intelligencer 1828: 1821: 1813: 1809: 1802: 1796: 1791: 1783: 1779: 1773: 1765: 1761: 1754: 1748: 1743: 1735: 1728: 1720: 1713: 1711: 1706: 1703: 1699: 1698: 1692: 1691: 1688: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1628: 1626: 1621: 1617: 1612: 1610: 1608: 1607: 1601: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1571: 1570: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1518: 1516: 1510: 1508: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1445:Harold Geneen 1442: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1325: 1322: 1321: 1316: 1315: 1309: 1306: 1305: 1303: 1302:Harold Geneen 1300: 1292: 1289: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1270: 1268: 1264: 1258: 1254: 1252: 1250: 1245: 1244: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1221: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1209: 1204: 1203: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1181:controversial 1178: 1175: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1156:control group 1153: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1117: 1114: 1112: 1108: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1084:The Holocaust 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1050: 1046: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1028: 1023: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 978: 974: 972: 968: 964: 958: 956: 952: 946: 945:H. L. Mencken 941: 937: 933: 929: 928: 927: 923: 919: 915: 911: 906: 902: 898: 895: 894: 893: 889: 885: 879: 877: 874:to here. The 873: 867: 862: 860: 856: 852: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 829: 825: 823: 819: 815: 810: 809:, obviously). 808: 804: 799: 796: 793: 791: 787: 783: 782: 777: 776: 771: 770: 765: 764: 763:The Spectator 759: 758: 752: 750: 746: 740: 737: 733: 729: 726: 723: 721: 715: 712: 710: 706: 702: 698: 693: 691: 690: 683: 679: 675: 674: 673: 669: 665: 661: 659: 655: 652:, whose work 651: 645: 643: 639: 637: 629: 625: 622: 618: 614: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 586: 583: 580: 577: 574: 571: 568: 565: 562: 560:city journal 559: 556: 553: 550: 546: 543: 540: 536: 533: 530: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 510: 509: 496: 492: 491:The Economist 488: 487: 486: 482: 478: 474: 470: 469: 468: 464: 460: 456: 452: 448: 444: 440: 436: 435: 434: 430: 426: 421: 419: 415: 414:Harry Magdoff 411: 410:Betty Friedan 407: 403: 399: 397: 394: 387: 384: 383: 377: 375: 374: 369: 368: 362: 359: 357: 353: 352: 347: 346: 341: 340: 335: 331: 330: 324: 322: 318: 313:fact-checking 310: 306: 301: 297: 292: 291: 287: 283: 282: 275: 270: 266: 263: 259: 255: 252: 251: 250: 249: 245: 241: 235: 233: 229: 225: 224: 218: 217: 213: 209: 205: 199: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 164: 163: 159: 155: 151: 150: 149: 148: 144: 140: 136: 132: 128: 124: 120: 116: 112: 108: 104: 100: 96: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4701: 4625: 4607: 4547: 4503: 4498: 4494: 4492: 4443: 4419: 4404: 4398: 4364:be a fork.-- 4361: 4357: 4349: 4345: 4303: 4299: 4295: 4290: 4288: 4278: 4272: 4267: 4262: 4259: 4250: 4225: 4175: 4162: 4156: 4147:: ". . both 4143: 4134: 4125:identitarian 4124: 4118: 4116: 4112: 4097: 4093: 4089: 4076: 4075: 4070: 4069: 4058: 4032: 4003: 3993: 3989: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3970: 3968: 3962: 3960: 3942: 3941: 3907: 3876: 3875: 3839: 3836: 3830: 3821: 3817: 3816: 3808: 3807: 3801: 3800: 3789: 3765:culture wars 3763: 3761: 3760: 3754: 3753: 3741:woke leftism 3738: 3736: 3735: 3730: 3723: 3722: 3718: 3707: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3686: 3650: 3648: 3607: 3598: 3594: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3568: 3562: 3558: 3556: 3554: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3539: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3476: 3457: 3453: 3430: 3425: 3407: 3403: 3375: 3374: 3366: 3301: 3296: 3285: 3279: 3275: 3271: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3227: 3218: 3209: 3199: 3190: 3178: 3171: 3144: 3141: 3133: 3127: 3126: 3122: 3117: 3115: 3111: 3109: 3106: 3100: 3098: 3090: 3088: 3082: 3078: 3076: 3074: 3071: 3067: 3060: 3058:talks about 3052: 3045: 3028: 3024: 3019: 2973: 2966: 2939: 2933: 2932: 2927: 2909: 2846: 2837:culture war. 2833: 2832: 2827: 2826: 2821: 2820: 2815: 2814: 2809: 2808: 2803: 2802: 2797: 2796: 2792: 2787: 2786: 2784: 2748: 2742: 2737: 2735: 2730: 2723: 2722: 2715: 2714: 2710: 2703: 2700: 2691: 2690: 2686: 2678: 2677: 2673: 2671: 2663: 2662: 2655: 2654: 2649: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2611: 2610: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2598: 2596: 2591: 2589: 2588: 2578: 2576: 2572: 2571:— I came to 2568: 2560: 2556: 2547: 2542: 2541: 2536: 2535: 2531: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2495: 2491: 2485: 2484: 2479: 2478: 2471: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2457: 2452: 2448: 2443: 2438: 2437: 2432: 2431: 2427:culture war. 2423: 2422: 2417: 2416: 2411: 2410: 2405: 2404: 2399: 2398: 2393: 2392: 2387: 2386: 2382: 2377: 2376: 2372: 2364: 2360: 2358: 2353:"MEA CULPA"! 2352: 2310: 2239: 2235: 2205: 2192: 2163: 2146:to handle. — 2111: 2097: 2094:WP:RFCBEFORE 2085: 2081: 2058: 2052: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1993: 1991: 1987:Conversation 1986: 1983:WP:FORBESCON 1980: 1958: 1943: 1932: 1923: 1914: 1905: 1895: 1886: 1876: 1868:The Atlantic 1867: 1857: 1848: 1839: 1830: 1820: 1811: 1801: 1790: 1782:PBS NewsHour 1781: 1772: 1763: 1753: 1742: 1727: 1702: 1656: 1630: 1624: 1619: 1613: 1611: 1605: 1597: 1540: 1536: 1462: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1416: 1400: 1396: 1374: 1366: 1364: 1323: 1319: 1317: 1313: 1311: 1298: 1296: 1295: 1285: 1265: 1262: 1261: 1248: 1242: 1241: 1232: 1228: 1223: 1212: 1206: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1110: 1105: 1088:fringe views 1079: 1071: 1048: 1044: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1025: 1016: 1012: 980: 939: 931: 913: 909: 900: 875: 846: 842: 838: 834: 827: 800: 797: 794: 779: 773: 767: 761: 757:City Journal 755: 753: 738: 727: 724: 713: 694: 689:City Journal 687: 686: 678:wall of text 653: 647: 641: 635: 633: 631: 623: 620: 616: 612: 548: 538: 494: 490: 472: 446: 442: 438: 437:Except that 398: 396: 390: 371: 365: 363: 360: 356:undue weight 349: 343: 337: 333: 327: 325: 320: 316: 293: 272: 261: 257: 232:undue weight 222: 219: 194: 123:David Brooks 115:Timothy Egan 93: 65: 43: 37: 4704:here (diff) 4630:progressive 4612:Sangdeboeuf 4586:reparations 4550:anti-racism 4525:Sangdeboeuf 4478:Sangdeboeuf 4234:Sangdeboeuf 4045:Sangdeboeuf 3916:Sangdeboeuf 3862:Sangdeboeuf 3671:Sangdeboeuf 3653:article is 3499:Sangdeboeuf 3441:Sangdeboeuf 3400:wp:PARTISAN 3398:(e.g., see 3382:Sangdeboeuf 3363:not a forum 2980:Sangdeboeuf 2889:Sangdeboeuf 2863:Sangdeboeuf 2692:in frequent 2567:Well, but, 2273:Sangdeboeuf 2232:wp:PRESERVE 2178:Sangdeboeuf 2148:Sangdeboeuf 2120:Sangdeboeuf 2055:wp:PARTISAN 2008:NewYorker's 1618:article in 1523:Sangdeboeuf 1485:here (DIFF) 1471:Sangdeboeuf 1379:Sangdeboeuf 1160:Sangdeboeuf 1092:Sangdeboeuf 996:Sangdeboeuf 963:Sangdeboeuf 914:overreaches 884:Sangdeboeuf 814:Sangdeboeuf 807:hoax papers 636:independent 572:commentary 475:as non-RS. 240:Sangdeboeuf 208:Sangdeboeuf 180:Sangdeboeuf 139:Sangdeboeuf 36:This is an 4545:) writes: 4504:Excelsior! 4298:, per the- 4226:"ideology" 4090:journalism 3996:Bari Weiss 3794:'......... 3552:of London. 3479:lindsayian 3466:, france24 3310:Woke scare 2551:w-word"!). 2513:Teetotaler 2271:applies. — 2012:NewsHour's 2004:Atlantic's 2000:Guardian's 1505:Regarding 1489:wp:PRIMARY 1463:succinctly 1428:Dictionary 1413:wp:OPINION 1371:WP:OPINION 1290:__________ 1219:pieces?(*) 1197:which part 1183:topics is 1049:convincing 955:newsworthy 769:Commentary 628:WP:SELFPUB 611:Of course 578:worldnews 566:spectator 544:spectator 528:economist 373:Al Jazeera 256:describes 99:Bill Maher 4173:suggested 4149:Corbynism 4123:(and not 4041:split off 3782:Aeschylus 3719:LeMonde's 3591:blackface 3530:LeMonde's 3518:LeMonde's 3408:LeMonde's 3380:thinks? — 3376:LeMonde's 3306:Red Scare 3053:LeMonde's 2561:of people 2517:Methodism 2507:got into 2361:mea culpa 2214:Aquillion 2161:Illing's 2064:wp:YESPOV 2036:USA Today 1887:USA TODAY 1673:help line 1539:; where? 1507:this edit 1467:WP:LISTEN 638:reviewers 554:usatoday 534:thetimes 495:The Times 236:criticism 119:Nick Cave 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 18:Talk:Woke 4660:identity 4641:internet 4568:' . . ' 4300:positive 4282:policy." 4251:positive 3943:Proposal 3708:entirely 3481:alarmism 3426:Le Monde 3292:======== 3272:'Ricaine 3267:________ 3228:Le Monde 2908:nytimes 2885:WP:UNDUE 2775:a·po·des 2653:through 2609:through 2557:momentum 2546:who are 2540:through 2483:through 2436:through 2301:a·po·des 2210:WP:SYNTH 2202:WP:UNDUE 2118:above. — 2102:WP:UNDUE 2044:The Hill 2032:Atlantic 2024:New York 1417:opinion, 1320:who does 1208:balanced 1189:balanced 880:wokeness 826:That is 786:"fringe" 658:reliable 634:lack of 204:addition 154:Espngeek 4564:' and ' 4548:". . ' 4397:in the 4154:Jacobin 4117:identit 4094:academy 4066:a paper 3976:doesn't 3731:society 3695:Times's 3691:concede 3597:(about 3433:article 3428:in the 3404:LeMonde 3261:Times's 3257:LeMonde 3163:Sources 2645:openly. 2629:omitted 2521:Friends 2501:reclaim 2496:because 2365:explain 2311:Exclude 2228:wp:EDIT 2166:article 2088:as per 1849:NPR.org 1694:Sources 1487:of the 1436:opinion 1217:opinion 1202:notable 1193:notable 1191:use of 940:notable 716:primary 402:context 39:archive 4576:' or ' 4495:cannot 4328:, and 4216:, and 4169:hattip 4102:saying 4096:, and 4092:, the 3984:wp:NEO 3825:& 3687:Please 3264:cited. 3101:Hodgd. 2934:tablet 2842:tagged 2766:WP:NOR 2666:wp:NEO 2444:woke's 2269:WP:BRD 2259:boldly 2197:WP:BLP 2193:Oppose 2098:oppose 2020:Forbes 1812:Forbes 1572:Edited 1519:should 1239:– are 1146:While 1074:; and 1040:there. 1017:what's 901:solely 839:expert 835:critic 772:, and 734:should 707:, and 646:" // " 457:here. 271:: "... 4646:, or 4399:Times 4362:would 4268:below 4161:(Or: 4121:arian 3693:that 3663:other 3550:Times 3514:Times 3396:wp:RS 3113:2020. 3048:here. 2972:this 2875:I've 2839:I've 2785:... ( 2764:Read 2637:knows 2579:don't 2509:LGBTQ 2264:added 1604:woke- 1541:Times 1422:, of 1243:often 1213:often 1185:often 1158:.) -- 1052:it.-- 775:World 477:Jlevi 267:From 16:< 4712:talk 4672:talk 4664:race 4662:and 4654:and 4616:talk 4606:The 4598:talk 4572:,' ' 4560:,' ' 4556:,' ' 4552:,' ' 4529:talk 4515:talk 4482:talk 4464:talk 4454:here 4401:here 4384:talk 4370:talk 4358:woke 4350:woke 4305:woke 4296:woke 4238:talk 4232:. -- 4188:talk 4106:said 4059:woke 4049:talk 4014:talk 4000:here 3965:. ." 3947:Woke 3920:talk 3891:talk 3877:pan- 3866:talk 3847:talk 3755:MORE 3703:woke 3699:woke 3689:: I 3675:talk 3667:this 3622:talk 3606:Or: 3579:woke 3563:woke 3503:talk 3489:talk 3445:talk 3439:. -- 3416:talk 3386:talk 3328:talk 3320:talk 3295:(2) 3276:woke 3253:woke 3079:woke 3046:woke 3027:will 2998:talk 2984:talk 2950:talk 2916:vox 2893:talk 2887:. -- 2867:talk 2793:woke 2772:Wug· 2755:talk 2664:Per 2659:——— 2617:know 2601:woke 2573:this 2569:then 2532:woke 2492:Woke 2458:woke 2453:woke 2383:woke 2341:talk 2327:talk 2298:Wug· 2277:talk 2248:talk 2240:woke 2230:'s " 2218:talk 2182:talk 2152:talk 2124:talk 2072:talk 1657:woke 1625:woke 1616:this 1606:ness 1600:Woke 1589:talk 1581:talk 1549:talk 1527:talk 1513:use 1497:talk 1475:talk 1453:talk 1403:) – 1401:POVs 1383:talk 1334:talk 1297:"In 1235:) – 1233:POVs 1174:diff 1164:talk 1138:talk 1129:they 1096:talk 1066:See 1058:talk 1036:this 1032:here 1027:Woke 1000:talk 967:talk 922:talk 888:talk 882:? -- 855:talk 818:talk 801:... 668:talk 584:ozy 493:and 481:talk 463:talk 429:talk 342:and 305:NPOV 276:..." 260:as " 244:talk 220:The 212:talk 184:talk 158:talk 143:talk 4706:.-- 4542:/ 2 4456:.) 4444:Vox 4403:: " 4344:: " 4273:SNG 4263:GNG 4008:.-- 3980:new 3972:But 3860:. — 3802:AND 3651:NYT 3612:"'' 3569:In 3454:cmt 3431:NYT 3302:Vox 3297:Vox 3131:(*) 2974:NYT 2861:. — 2855:use 2641:own 2548:not 2474:"). 2373:Vox 2236:any 2164:Vox 2066:.-- 2057:: " 1635:as 1620:Vox 1511:can 1469:. — 1121:are 1109:: " 938:is 843:any 828:not 781:OZY 741:not 730:can 680:at 662:"-- 630:: " 617:not 615:is 317:not 137:. — 4714:) 4674:) 4635:, 4626:re 4618:) 4600:) 4592:-- 4531:) 4517:) 4509:-- 4484:) 4466:) 4458:-- 4442:a 4417:- 4411:" 4386:) 4372:) 4336:, 4332:, 4324:, 4320:, 4316:, 4312:, 4266:) 4257:, 4240:) 4212:, 4208:, 4204:, 4200:, 4190:) 4182:-- 4167:- 4113:do 4080:." 4051:) 4016:) 3957:, 3922:) 3914:-- 3906:: 3901:is 3893:) 3885:-- 3868:) 3849:) 3841:-- 3815:: 3806:: 3677:) 3624:) 3616:-- 3566:): 3505:) 3491:) 3458:re 3447:) 3418:) 3388:) 3330:) 3314:-- 3226:. 3208:. 3189:. 3103:] 3000:) 2986:) 2952:) 2944:-- 2895:) 2869:) 2834:h. 2828:g. 2822:f. 2816:e. 2810:d. 2804:c, 2798:b. 2791:) 2788:a. 2770:— 2757:) 2656:h. 2650:b. 2633:is 2625:to 2612:h. 2606:b. 2543:h. 2537:b. 2486:h. 2480:b. 2439:h. 2433:b. 2424:h. 2418:g. 2412:f. 2406:e. 2400:d. 2394:c, 2388:b. 2381:) 2378:a. 2343:) 2329:) 2296:— 2279:) 2250:) 2220:) 2184:) 2154:) 2126:) 2074:) 1922:. 1904:. 1885:. 1866:. 1847:. 1829:. 1810:. 1780:. 1762:. 1709:^ 1667:, 1663:, 1647:, 1643:, 1639:, 1591:) 1551:) 1529:) 1499:) 1477:) 1455:) 1385:) 1336:) 1328:-- 1166:) 1140:) 1098:) 1078:: 1070:: 1060:) 1011:, 1002:) 969:) 947:'s 924:) 890:) 857:) 820:) 766:, 760:; 703:, 684:: 670:) 621:is 547:- 537:- 483:) 465:) 431:) 423:-- 388:): 309:RS 246:) 214:) 186:) 160:) 145:) 117:, 113:, 109:, 105:, 101:, 4710:( 4670:( 4614:( 4596:( 4527:( 4513:( 4480:( 4462:( 4382:( 4368:( 4236:( 4186:( 4119:i 4047:( 4012:( 3918:( 3889:( 3864:( 3845:( 3673:( 3620:( 3608:" 3599:M 3587:M 3583:M 3575:M 3571:M 3559:M 3555:( 3542:M 3534:M 3526:M 3522:M 3501:( 3487:( 3443:( 3414:( 3384:( 3326:( 3318:( 3212:. 3193:. 3143:( 3022:: 2996:( 2982:( 2948:( 2938:" 2891:( 2865:( 2777: 2753:( 2702:" 2669:: 2505:Q 2339:( 2325:( 2303: 2275:( 2246:( 2216:( 2180:( 2150:( 2122:( 2070:( 1908:. 1889:. 1870:. 1851:. 1833:. 1814:. 1766:. 1587:( 1579:( 1547:( 1525:( 1495:( 1473:( 1451:( 1399:( 1381:( 1332:( 1324:. 1269:. 1251:) 1249:* 1231:( 1162:( 1136:( 1113:" 1094:( 1056:( 998:( 992:" 990:' 982:" 965:( 920:( 886:( 868:: 864:@ 853:( 816:( 812:— 736:. 722:. 666:( 479:( 461:( 427:( 242:( 210:( 200:: 196:@ 182:( 156:( 141:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index