Jump to content

Talk:Robin DiAngelo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scrubbed Criticism

[edit]

It has been fascinating to watch Wikipedia gradually and carefully scrub all criticism of others from the Wikipedia page. For such a polarizing and controversial figure who ideas are often criticized as neo-racism by her contemporaries, there is zero mention of it on her Wikipedia page. Wikipedia's oozing left-wing bias is on display yet again. There used to be a controversy section that got shorter and shorter than was removed entirely, it included a dozen different sources at its peak. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.239.49.235 (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some reliable sources that explain what "neo-racism" is and why DiAngelo's work falls into the category, please? — Bilorv (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“White fragility” 2605:59C8:63EC:4F10:EC9E:FBD7:FD17:3BFB (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree! I see this more often lately and anytime I have commented, complained or lamented this fact I would receive intense backlash for my opinion! Dacroce1 (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the necro-post, but seriously! Compare that to the Bret Weinstein entry where any attempt at positivity is immediately and blatantly scrubbed by an overzealous editor... Furthermore, how is the heavily substantiated accusation of plagiarism still not included in the article? 208.253.205.82 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source giving some criticism, but there's plenty in the academic literature.

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/20/892943728/professor-criticizes-book-white-fragility-as-dehumanizing-to-black-people Rustygecko (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots more of it

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/antiracism-training-white-fragility-robin-diangelo-ibram-kendi.html Rustygecko (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

London Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nice-racism-by-robin-diangelo-review-rwgnb82mm Rustygecko (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rips it to pieces

https://medium.com/arc-digital/dear-white-people-please-do-not-read-robin-diangelos-white-fragility-7e735712ee1b Rustygecko (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so? There are plenty of reviews that are not quoted in the article. This article should contain a very, very short set of examples of what's available in the literature, and the book articles can contain a little bit more, but we cannot summarise each of hundreds or possibly thousands of reviews. — Bilorv (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Okay so?" That's your response? Nobody is saying Wikipedia should summarize every critique of her out there but anytime anyone adds in section about the large amount of controversary surrounding her work it gets scrubbed. Douglas Murray refers to her espousing a kind of Neo-Racism in his book The War On The West. His book is a New York Times Bestseller unless I am mistaken. She is a deeply controversial figure but any mention of it at all gets scrubbed from Wikipedia. Meanwhile J.K. Rowling has a section discussing her views on biology sex and transgender people. But we can't discuss any of this with Robin Diangelo? 73.239.49.235 (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gain consensus here before including. Inserting with an edit summary demanding discussion to remove is not how this works.(And I do think the article may be a little too kind to her given how other writer's controversial views are covered.) However, most of the criticism is directed at her published works, rather than personal statements she has made, which is significantly different than JK RowlingSlywriter (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid any confusion my stance is that we include a section detailing the controversy around Diangelo. There used to be one that slowly shrank in size until it was completely removed. 73.239.49.235 (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure what else I can say, if consensus is required than I will never overcome being stonewalled. Is there anyone with a substantial criticism to the inclusion of this section? If not i'll resubmit it in a month. 73.239.49.235 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed an extremely minimal section since I think anything substantial would be automatically denied. 73.239.49.235 (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy sections inherently violate neutral point of view. In every article, there should be no separation of positive and negative material: both should be interspersed, as is the case in this article. Indeed, if we take the "Works" section and exclude the content that can neither be seen as positive nor negative ("DiAngelo wrote book X in year Y"), about half of the section is negative feedback and half the section either puts forward DiAngelo's view or gives positive feedback. This is already quite negatively skewed. Adding more negative feedback without adding more of the positive feedback (almost all of which is currently omitted) violates due weight. — Bilorv (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the content of her wikipedia page is too negative is absurd. Here's the only bit the addresses
" The book received mixed critical reception, with positive reviews in sources including New Statesman, The New Yorker, Publishers Weekly, and the Los Angeles Review of Books, and negative reviews in sources including The Atlantic and The Washington Post. Publishers Weekly praised the book as "a thoughtful, instructive, and comprehensive book on challenging racism." Isaac Chotiner, in The New Yorker, said that in the wake of the Murder of George Floyd and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, DiAngelo's book served as a guide for many of the millions of Americans questioning systematic racism, though he notes that some critics have described her definition of white fragility as broad, reductive, and condescending towards people of color."
As you can see it is half of one line smashed between two lines complimenting her on a Wikipedia page that is full of praise for her work. The amount of praise disproportionate praise for her work would seem to violate neutral point of view. Considering that a large number of her contemporaries view her as a leading figure in a neo-racist movement, its odd that this is all the mention that gets. Meanwhile J.K Rowling has a whole sections dedicated to things she said on twitter. This is wikipedia's left wing bias being observed in real time.
It is bizarre to me that any attempt to characterize how an authors work was received in its hayday violates neutral point of view. I would bet a large sum of money I could come back in 40 years when the political winds have changed and there won't be such a strident fight against anything critical of Diangelo being included. 73.239.49.235 (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Theres also the last part of the final line where it says its condescending, hardly an overly harsh review. 73.239.49.235 (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the lack of a “criticism” section on this article is a glaring omission. TrottieTrue (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. How can it be that there is no criticism section of the perception in this article? I expect every wikipedia article on authors, especially controversial ones, to also mention the controversial parts, as this is part of the trust in the article itself. 176.198.202.169 (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example from other languages translated to english:
For Katy Waldman, a journalist at the New Yorker, the book is more diagnostic than solution-oriented and its value lies in its "methodical and irrefutable exposition of racism in thought and action, and in its call for humility and vigilance.
The journalist of the weekly Marianne Hadrien Mathoux writes that this book "has been widely criticized for its conceptual weakness. Carlos Lozada, a reviewer for the Washington Post, notes that the book's flagship concept, built on circular reasoning, proves fallacious: "Either white people admit that they are inherently and eternally racist, and vow to work on their white fragility, in which case DiAngelo's estimates are correct; or they resist such categorizations, or dispute the interpretation of a particular incident, in which case they are merely proving DiAngelo right." For Jonathan Haidt, a New York ethics professor, DiAngelo promotes "a paranoid worldview that separates people from each other and sends them down the road to alienation, anxiety and intellectual impotence.
Nosheen Iqbal, editorial writer for The Guardian, calls DiAngelo's book a "radical statement in a time when the debate is so polarized. Kenan Malik, also a Guardian journalist, argues that the book is "psychoverbiage" that counterproductively shifts the debate from structural change to individual bias, leaving the real issues untouched.
I'd appreciate to have points like these raised, too. 176.198.202.169 (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, add back the controversy section. She has made racist remarks repeatedly. If she was right leaning she would be described as a alt-right pos with tons of controversy. It's so clearly left bias to not mention any controversy surrounding her it's infuriating. Neatoconnect (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which quotes by DiAngelo do you wish to be added to the article (and which sources)? We include several on her explanation of "white fragility", include the quote "To be less white is to: be less oppressive, less arrogant, less certain, less defensive, less ignorant, more humble" with criticism, and also note with regards to diversity training: "there is no evidence to indicate that anti-bias training leads to increases in the number of women or people of color in management positions". However, it is not neutral to segregate positive and negative content, and instead content should be sorted by topic or chronology, whether positive or negative. — Bilorv (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"However, it is not neutral to segregate positive and negative content, and instead content should be sorted by topic or chronology, whether positive or negative."
Much of the world reads wikipedia biographies expecting to see a section on crticism. Most entries have one. This one does not, yet the subject of the article is notable, partly, for being the subject of intense criticism. That is rather suspect. I would strongly dispute the notion that a criticism section is "not neutral", that's not really making any sense.
People want the material organized in a way that saves them time and provides information, not in a way that deliberately obfuscates and skews meaning under the guise of neutrality. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist#Criticism 2A02:C7F:5D42:D700:99AC:5C0D:146B:DBAD (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is just not true. It is perfectly permissible to have a criticism section under wikipedia rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism 2A02:C7F:5D42:D700:99AC:5C0D:146B:DBAD (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we have consensus. The majority of comments here are in support of adding a criticism section. To whomever was going to add the section back in - do it. 67.161.119.176 (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also fully support adding a controversy section. I'd also like to remind @Bilorv of Wikipedia:Ownership of content. You don't get to call the shots alone and it is clear to see based on this TP and your edit history you have devoted years protecting this article and shaping it.
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:9007:B762:629B:E54E (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not achieved by majority rule, this isn't a democracy. Some articles have criticism sections, but they are used sparingly and are to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Reading the article, I'm not really sure why you guys think there's excessive praise here. Not really getting that impression, although if you guys have a political axe to grind you may be interpreting this content differently. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Controversy section

[edit]

Since my previous topic was removed for some reason, I'm gonna write another. Add a controversy section to this page. Vv93spst (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism accusations

[edit]

I've added a sentence on the recent accusations that DiAngelo plagiarized over 20 sections of her Ph.D. thesis at the University of Washington. Some sources here, here, and here. As more RS come out, we should update this article.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:59D9:6CE9:994A:FE15 (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Post covered also that case. Sd-100 (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NYPOST and WP:FREEBEACON, and also the entry on that page for RealClearPolitics. Do we have actual reliable sources covering this? JaggedHamster (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that many of the examples in the anonymous complaint are dubious at best. DiAngelo is frequently being dinged for quotes, authors' names and common phrases such as "One of the". In point #6 of the complaint, DiAngelo is dinged for the word "European".
Furthermore, as was the case with Roxanne Gay in December 2023, many of these examples are cases where DiAngelo should have quoted an author, though she does cite them. While citations errors are nothing to scoff at, it is misleading not to acknowledge that citation errors are not what one thinks of when they hear the words "Plagiarism scandal".
"Citation errors" would be citing the wrong page number, citing the wrong author, citing the wrong publication of an author who has multiple publications, etc. Such mistakes are "citation errors". Using other people's material and not citing them is the very core of "plagiarism". Pete unseth (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] << Plagiarism Today covers this well.
This is probably too opinionated or original-research-y to include in the article, but I believe it would be misleading to only cover the accusation itself in this case. Wilesabr (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JaggedHamster and @Wilesabr
It is wrong to delete these accusations from WP when they're being covered by several RS (namely The Telegraph and The Hill). WP doesn't like Free Beacon and NYP, got it. But we had The Telegraph which is a RS. Also RealClearPolitics which has "no consensus"; if you dont like it then open a RfC on the RS noticeboard. Moreover, we also have UnHerd which is a source but not featured anywhere on the Perennial Sources list; if you don't like it then open a RfC again.
Given this is being covered and based on the importance regarding DiAngelo's claim to fame, it is Wikipedia:Due. Raising arguments here over what happened to Mrs. Gay is tantamount to Wikipedia:Synth and not relevant for what WP requires.
The current tally of RS' as of now is 2: The Telegraph and The Hill. Both are verdant green in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. We are not counting RCP, Fox News, Free Beacon, NYP, and others here.
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:C955:1979:CC99:864C (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with them being in given they're now reliably sourced. At the point I removed the claims and commented above they weren't and shouldn't have been in a BLP. Your tone here and in your edit summaries is coming across as unnecessarily combative, please WP:AGF. JaggedHamster (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Claudine Gay, not Roxanne. Not sure why I thought her name was Roxanne. Wilesabr (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s in the New York Times [2] and The Guardian [3] now. Volunteer Marek 23:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robin_DiAngelo&oldid=1258221017"