Talk:Angry white male/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Angry white male. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Neutral Point of View Tag

After reading several comments from both sides in the debate of this article, I feel that the point of view of this article, more specifically the links, could be discussed to concencus, in order to lay to bed any sort of issue. The article meets WP:N, but brutally fails WP:NPOV. If there is any question of this see the comments I have highlighted below. Da Killa Wabbit (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This should have a "see also" of the Republican party.

i fixed it. angry white males share almost the same ideological philosophy and sociopolitical persasion to link the three subjects of the AWM. neo-con republicans are mainstream educated christian patriots of the right? RIGHT?

Educated? Feck. Sioraf (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

'Voting bloc'?

Is the term only used to describe a 'voting bloc' as indicated in the lead-in sentance? I have actually never heard it used to describe an actual voting constituency (which I have heard the term 'soccer mom'), rather the use of 'Angry White Male' has always been in a more general 'demographic' sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.115.165 (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

neologism?

Is this not just a neologism invented (or appropriated) by the author of this book? I see no evidence that this isn't just a catchy neologism, or something that could easily be merged as a single sentence into the relevant US election article? --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The AWN exists, do they vote the same way? Well yes of course they do. I remember a group of AWM storming voting stations during the Gore/Bush election of years ago. On a rampage of intimidation I might add. Will they do it again? Watch out America!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.172.186 (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a real voting demographic?

lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.166 (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

evidently —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for Deletion

This page is offensive and racist and I have nominated it for deletion. Negative discussion of particular racial or sexual groups should be clearly labeled, and balanced with permitting such offensive material about *ALL* racial and sexual groups. NPOV indeed!

--Zerasmus (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to nominate this for deletion you have to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:AFD. –xeno ^talk 22:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how about the following as a description of the phrase "Angry White Male":

"Angry White Male" is a hostile phrase used by one side of the USA's two party system (Democrat) to describe people almost always on the other (Republican) side who are generally: of white race, Christian heritage, middle or working class, and male. The user of such a term intends to dismiss the views and emotions of such people for some usually unstated reason. There is also a clear implication that whatever views such people have are tainted by the emotion of anger and not clearly reasoned. In general, most people read the phrase as applying to all American white males who are not adherents of the US Democratic Party.

Comments?? Zerasmus (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it sounds like you're making stuff up. See WP:OR. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't know what you mean "making stuff up"? Ordinarily I suppose that would mean I am fabricating facts, or misstating them. Making up that I speak English? Making up that I know Democrats? That I don't know when I am the target of an epithet? (presumably due to racial/ sexual disqualification, or perhaps intelligence?) Anyway, if you disagree with what I say, it would be more useful if you addressed something specific.

Sounds angry :). Anyway, I have started a rewrite. Note that the OED has a reference from 1990 which predates the 94 election and so I have removed the focus upon that particular event for now. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I reverted your work while you were in the middle of a rewrite, CWarden. I guess I wasn't paying proper attention. Undid my reversion immediately. Yintaɳ 21:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation is improper and unpublished, being a Draft proposal from 2006. It is proposed, not published. Still, it is there, and it is the OED. Also, I have never heard anyone who was not a self-identified Democrat use the phrase. It is almost exclusively partisan and needs to be so noted. The objects are also always (?? what do you think) presumed to be Republicans. Partisan politics of a dichotomous sort. There are two. There is a Heaven and a Hell. God and the Devil. My Party and Your Party. The phrase is hostile and derogatory and always intended to be so. That ought to be clearly and openly stated.129.119.69.43 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a white male and I sometimes get angry at politicians. "Angry white male" is not racism. That claim is a red herring. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So what? The fact that you are a white male has nothing to do with something being a "red herring". A red herring distracts from the subject at hand. Racial epithets are relevant to questions of racism. Or do you think "white" is an irrelevant word here? The label applies to non-whites? Non-men? It is a classificatory statement, openly classifying a group by race and by sex. Otherwise, why the "white men" part? The "angry" just serves to dismiss, doesn't it? Is there anyone here who is a US citizen who has never been a member of the Democratic Party? If you find a white man who is habitually angry but at Republicans for some reason, is he an "angry white man"? I simply think the term is partisan, racially hostile, and manipulative and should be clearly so explained. Enough bickering though. Describe it as you will. It is a dead term from a time when American Democrats managed to lose control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in less than eight years. I don't think anyone other than a Republican wants them to use it again. I hope. In any case I'm done with this.

It's not racist, it's political. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents: I'm not from the U.S. and I've not ever been there, so I don't feel it's my place to comment on the possible political nuances of the term. That said; it does conjure an immediate image in my mind, and it looks like that image is mostly in line with the current content of the article. This makes me think that an article about the stereotype would certainly be appropriate, as long as it fits existing guidelines. Kinzarr (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV violated

What about "angry black male", that seems far more apt and realistic. The first time I ever heard "angry white male" was from left-wing professors not from the general public. This strikes me as polluting Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.192.228 (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Angry black male" is not something you hear much. "Angry white male" basically refers to a group who used to have a monopoly on power in America and in recent years have been forced to share some of that power. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cite? Oh no wait you can't, because that's just your personal, and frankly immensely stupid, bigoted, racist, sexist opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.19.89 (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this article a joke?

April Fools? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.19.89 (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

Why? Macarion (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This is applicable in Europe and elsewhere, as well as the USA

Anders Breivik clearly was an angry white male. Most supporters of BNP, EDL etc are angry white males (most of their membership is male). It is worth noting that miscegenation is more common between white females and non-white males, especially black males, hence creating angry white males.--KayWad (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's your own original research and doesn't belong in Wikipedia (and neither does this article in general). --89.27.36.41 (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It's these kinds of articles that destroy Wikipedia credibility...

It belongs in the urban dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.114.250 (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's allowing editing by non-accountable IP's that "destroy Wikipedia credibility". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This term is a racist, political generalization and deserves to be removed from wiki (or at least mirrored with an article on Angry White Democrats). LegendLength (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Is "male" the opposite of "Democrat" then...? —Tom Morris (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This page either needs deleted or to be reworded in a more objective manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.189.242.112 (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Popular culture section

Surely Archie Bunker needs to be added, right? I would also consider adding Paul Kersey and, for a more modern reference, Mike Baxter from Last Man Standing (U.S. TV series). BillyJack193 (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark this racist bile for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.240.194 (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Not just an American thing

The angry white male is present in a lot of other countries, Australia particularly --124.186.119.250 (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

derogatory vs. racist

I understand this as a derogatory term, but not a racist one. My test for this is that if I were to substitute "Black," "Latino," or "Asian" for "White" it wouldn't come across as racially insensitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.163.206 (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is it is "racist" in that it uses (the mythical aspect of) race, but it is used to create a subset and is not used as a slur against a race in general. I also use a similar test, especially in media articles, but they use stereotypes or drop prefixes in majority as a shortcut, a compression, like (implied male) "boxer" vs "female boxer". Unfortunately, that can reinforce stereotypes. This term is also sexist since it says "male". Is it "emotionist" too? :-) Since this stereotype is defined in terms of attitudes toward other stereotypes, it adds to it being racist and sexist. I think the word "derogatory" is strong enough and can cover the other aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrayBolt (talk • contribs) 17:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Because "white" isn't a race, racism can't be used against white people, right? So that makes this a derogatory term and not a racist one. This is sarcasm in case you can't tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.16.217 (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

If you replaced any other "racial" descriptor in place of "white" it would be considered a "racist" term. It is therefore a "racist" article with a racial bias. It's not truthful in any shape or form and shouldn't be an article on Wikipedia. The fact that editors have bot/script programs set up to alert them to edits done to certain articles, including this one, proves that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:33aa:af90:9477:581b:5d41:8c67 (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2017‎

It would prove nothing of the sort even if it were true. There's not bots or scripts, just coincidences and watchlists.

Comparisons to races are false equivalencies, and it doesn't matter anyway. If you have a reliable source which says this is 'racist', let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"The term later gained prominence in the 1994 federal elections in the US, in which a large number of neo-conservative, white voters turned out."

It's painful to me whoever wrote this doesn't have the foggiest notion what "neo-conservative" means. This is a specific movement and school of thought adhered to by a vanishingly small fraction of voters; it would be dumb enough to claim that Bush voters in 2004 were "neo-conservatives", let alone Gingrich's army. It would be like calling the average Obama voter a Keynesian. 50.80.140.8 (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Italic?

Should this title be italic? I can't really find any justification for it in MOS:ITALIC, and comparable articles (Angry black woman, soccer mom, NASCAR dad) don't have their title in italic. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

While I don't have an opinion on whether it is correct or not, the change was made by Sangdeboeuf here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The article describes "pejorative terms". Italics are normally used when discussing terms themselves (words and phrases) per the use-mention distinction. Hence "Angry white male is a term describing white men with reactionary political views" as opposed to "An angry white male smashed my Corolla". See MOS:WORDSASWORDS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Like everything else in MOS, "WORDSASWORDS" is a guideline and is not mandatory. Italics is used for many things, including foreign phrases, while the quote marks I have introduced clearly label this as a phrase. Italics are also harder to reader. The quotes are preferable. Please do not restore your preferred version until there is a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Movies about angry white men

The movies Joe,^[1] Falling Down, God Bless America, and Clint Eastwood's performances in both the Dirty Harry series and Gran Torino^[2]^[3]^[4] have been described as definitive explorations of the angry white man.

^ George Packer, "Poor, White, and Republican", The New Yorker, February 14, 2012.

^ Jonathan Romney, "Gran Torino, Clint Eastwood: The screen legend plays an angry old man at war with the city of Detroit", The Independent on Sunday, February 22, 2009.

^ Ryan Senaga, "Angry white man: Clint Eastwood channels ghosts from past films in Gran Torino", Honolulu Weekly, January 14, 2009.

^ "Angry white men on film: Seven times cinema got to the Trump vote before us | Cambridge Day".

Where are any of these films discussed as "definitive explorations" of the term and/or concept as used in this article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Gran Torino has a supporting reference. Dirty Harry does not. Hasn't stopped an editor from putting Dirty Harry back in several times.173.177.138.177 (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Racist and Sexist

This term fits wikipedias definition for both Racism and Sexism so both should be displayed.

@Flyer 22 Reborn: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngoc Cens (talk • contribs) 04:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV, then WP:NOTFORUM and finally WP:OR. Find reliable sources and propose them here. Do not edit war. Grayfell (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Ngoc Cens: That you feel the term is racist and sexist is fine. It is not, however, encyclopedic any more that my feelings that various other phrases, policies and people are racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, ageist, classist, misogynist, ableist, heteronormative, etc. To add material discussing whether or not the phrase is racist or sexist you will need independent reliable sources discussing the phrase and whether or not it is. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You will come to find that Wikipedia is some times very retarded and there ain't nothing you can really do about it. Even if what is said is completely true, if there ain't some journalist talking about it, it does not matter.--Galahad1822 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

How come "Angry black woman" is defined as a stereotype, but "Angry white male" is just a derogatory term?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.9.68 (talk • contribs) 16:28, June 14, 2020 (UTC)

Because that's what the sources say. Merely because the phrases use similar wording does not mean we define them the same way. If it did, we'd be struggling over Guinea pig, Domestic pig and Humber Pig. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-and-white-male-rage-thesis/572440/2601:405:4A80:B950:659F:9C93:1BD0:C135 (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/article/4bdfc4f47b754cf3915e87eba7393477 2601:405:4A80:B950:659F:9C93:1BD0:C135 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Books about "Angry White Men"

Would this need its own sub-section below? I am not sure where the formatting error is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3570:4db0:493a:2ccb:425e:d164 (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant to link this in a previous Talk-Note. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/2/e2020589118

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3570:4db0:493a:2ccb:425e:d164 (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not create a new talk page section for every single comment. Grayfell (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The article already has a further reading section at Angry white man#Further reading. An essay by Wikipedia editors on this is at Wikipedia:Further reading. Per that essay, any additions to such a section should be topical, reliable, balanced, and limited. Please also avoid adding any works which you are personally affiliated with, as this is indistinguishable from spamming. (You should also review WP:COI in that case).

As for the PNAS article, it doesn't directly mention the phrase angry white man or angry white male directly, merely as the name of a citation. This is a red flag. Please be mindful of WP:SYNTH. This article should summarizes sources about the topic. It should not combine article which are related to the topic to form new conclusions. Grayfell (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Inline Citations

"Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space."

Is this better to use instead of the Reference tag? i.e.

Template:references

In my browser, I did not see the inline prompts but only the Reference prompt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3570:4db0:493a:2ccb:425e:d164 (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please see Help:Referencing for beginners. The term "tag" is ambiguous in Wikipedia jargon, so I'm not entirely clear what you mean by this. Citations place in <ref></ref> tags will generate inline citations, if that's what you mean. Grayfell (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Notable?

AFAICT, this seems to be a term used in a few news articles. It lacks a clear definition, an associated field of study, or a useful application. Is every new buzzword like “coastal elites” and “university establishment” worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Oxenfording (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The term hardly "new", it's been around for quite a while. (The article says the early 90's, which makes it about 40 years old.) Google shows 137,000 Ghits for "angry white man" and 295,000 Ghits for "angry white men". That doesn't seem like "a few news articles" to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)