Talk:Robin DiAngelo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not at University of washington and not sure about "Student Choice" Award

Despite stranger article mention, DiAngelo does not appear to be a part-time lecturer at the University of Washington department of social work--or at least not any longer. See https://socialwork.uw.edu/part-time-lecturers . Will remove accordingly. Similarly, googling for details about the "Student Choice Award" only reveals information from DiAngelo's own PR page and then other webpages which seem to have cribbed from that directly without citation. Would be very strange for a university to have an award and not advertise it online in this day in age. I am leaning towards deleting this until we can get verification from a better source. -Pengortm (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Failure to meet notability criteria for academics.

1. . the term 'white fragility' does not have a significant scholarly impact.
2. . She has not received any prestigious award.
3. . She is not at the high position of any society or association.
4. . She's not a distinguished professor.
5. . She is not in the field of literature or art.

--tickle me 20:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I kindly ask you to explain the first one in detail, thanks. JahlilMA (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bio pic 2 crop.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Reception section

@Midnightblueowl: I don't think Robin DiAngelo § Reception, which I moved to White Fragility § Reception, should be restored as in your last edit. Only the first sentence is about who DiAngelo is—the rest of it is about what she said in White Fragility. Either the whole section should go, or everything in that section but the first sentence should go, or White Fragility § Reception should be moved back into this article, and apparently neither of us supports that last option, since you didn't restore all of the content. Restoring only those two paragraphs makes it appear as if her ideas in White Fragility only have critics and not admirers, which is obviously untrue as shown in the full section moved to White Fragility § Reception. If you still support keeping the section as it is in your last edit, I would like to hear your rationale. Feedback from other editors is also welcome, of course. Biogeographist (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

+1. That partial restoration is questionable. I propose an alternative: merging the White Fragility article into this one and deleting the other, since most reviewers and journalists don't care much to differentiate between the ideas presented in the book, the 2011 article, her workshops, and her similar work. Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I should add that I'm happy to expand the Reception section more to focus less on the book alone where possible. Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to see positive assessment of DiAngelo's ideas also included in the "Reception" section; I only restored those two paragraphs (both of which are negative assessments) because they are fairly longstanding parts of the article and I don't think that they should be removed, at least not without a discussion and consensus. The first of those two paragraphs, at least, deals overwhelmingly with DiAngelo in general, rather than just her book White Fragility or her concept of white fragility, so should certainly remain in this article.

As for the issue of duplication on the pages Robin DiAngelo and White Fragility, I believe that there is inevitably going to be some overlap, and that's not intrinsically a bad thing. DiAngelo is (in my view) perhaps one of the 25 most influential public intellectuals in the U.S. at the moment, so it's important that we have a pretty decent article about her (which, at present, we don't really have). Her primary contribution to academic and public discourse has been her concept of white fragility, which is not totally synonymous with her book White Fragility; the concept predates the book, and has had an impact broader than it. While the article about the book should summarise the reception that the book has received, I think that this biographical article should also detail her white fragility concept, and then provide some assessment of the reception that it has received. Ideally, some of the material which you have moved to White Fragility could be moved back to this article, but trimmed down into a more concise form. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Allanaaaaaaa said: I'm happy to expand the Reception section more to focus less on the book alone where possible. This sounds like the best route to me. The book is obviously notable and the article on the book should not be deleted as Allanaaaaaaa suggested at Talk:White Fragility. Biogeographist (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of positive receptions is very welcome, as well as the movement of sources specifically relevant to the book. As it stands, with it's singular quotation, the reception is non-NPOV as regarding a controversial body of work. I'm also restoring the critical piece because of it's subject referring not just to the book, but to DiAngelo's scholarship broadly. Equilibrium103 (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the section, following its removal by Bilorv. Bilorv, you cite WP:CSECTION to assert that ""controversy" sections are thoroughly unwanted". First, WP:CSECTION is part of an essay (Wikipedia:Criticism), and not official policy. Second, although I tend to agree with what the recommandations made, I don't see why there shouldn't be a section dedicated to the response/reception of DiAngelo's work, which includes workshops, conferences, writing, interviews, etc. There is specific content pertaining to the reception of her famous book "White fragility", but also more general opinions on her work as a whole. So please do not delete this section, or at least its content. If you consider it to be unbalanced, you can add some content to balance it, or rephrase certain parts. No problem with that. Fa suisse (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Fa suisse and thanks for the comment. I understand that it can take a long time to get an intuitive sense of which essays are authoritative and which are non-mainstream viewpoints, but WP:CSECTION is actually quite an uncontroversial (pun intended) corollary of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. "Official policy" is not so much rule as art, and essays can be very useful in helping us navigate widespread conventions which are in place for good reasons. For instance, an article would be very unlikely to pass GA review if it contained a "Controversy" section, whether labelled under that name or not.

Wikipedia articles should be primarily based on reliable secondary sources, which means that there is no need for a dedicated section for an accumulation of secondary sources, because this material should be integrated throughout an article. Instead of having a reception section, we should be simply integrating reception throughout the article. You say If you consider it to be unbalanced, you can add some content to balance it, or rephrase certain parts but this is actually what I did. If you look more closely, you will see that my edit did two things: the first is to rewrite reception content so that it is an accurate summary of all available sources (rather than cherrypicked sources like The Atlantic and The Federalist, the individual two most negative reliable sources, to the exclusion of The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, Los Angeles Review of Books, New Statesman etc.); the second is to integrate this content into the body, so that each section of the article is based on secondary sources.

Additionally, further reception on White Fragility belongs at White Fragility, and this article should have more like a lede-style approach to the book (i.e. contain a brief summary of the most significant aspects of the book, as does the lead of White Fragility), which is why I reduced the length of the content.

However, I did also make some changes which I viewed as self-evident and omitted because the edit summary didn't have room, but should have explained. Church is not a reliable source—see Quillette at WP:RSP and this is the more reliable of the two citations offered. The Newkirk work is not cited and not evidently about DiAngelo—certainly the description written in the previous state of the article was not really about DiAngelo. The New Republic is a book review of White Fragility and so was part of the summary that has now been rewritten to conform better with the aggregate of reliable sources (as there are too many reviews to individually include each here).

I did make some errors though, so I am grateful for your comment. I mistook the New Yorker reference for their 2018 article, rather than their 2019 article, and removed it thinking it was a book review of White Fragility when it is something more. I have now incorporated this content into the body of the article, as is appropriate per above. I removed Lauren Michele Jackson's comment when, again, it is about DiAngelo and not White Fragility—this content correctly belongs under a description of DiAngelo's diversity training career, which was phenomenally lacking previously and so I've added a paragraph on it to attempt to begin redressing this, including Lauren Michele Jackson's quote.

I hope these answer your questions about my edits, but let me know if I should explain further any parts which you are not clear on. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, I notice now that the Lauren Michele Jackson comment was actually added by you recently, and not part of the content I initially removed. So thank you for adding it and, as I say above, I agree that it is useful. — Bilorv (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey again, coming here regarding the Newkirk book and JC Pan's (New Republic) analysis of Newkirk and DiAngelo's approach to diversity training, after your revert calling for discussion here. My bad regarding missing the discussion of the Newkirk book and JC Pan's article (New Republic) on this talk page: in my memory there was only a discussion of the merits of a Controversy section, and regarding that I clearly explained above that I did not object to its deletion but I did to the deletion of its contents. I didn't check the edit history of the last few days thoroughly so I don't know if this is your work or some other contributor's. Anyhow, my source for the paragraph, JC Pan's article in the New Republic quite clearly discusses a "DiAngelo" approach to diversity training, as discussed in Newkirk's book, and criticises both that approach and that of Newkirk (as interpreted by JC Pan). So I guess we could reword the paragraph to make it clearer these opinions and views are presented by JC Pan, but I don't see how you can make a case for not including any reference to the source, given that it addresses the subject of diversity training in general and DiAngelo's specifically, as seen through both Newkirk's and JC Pan's opinion. Also, Newkirk's book and ideas aren't mentioned by the article White Fragility (the article on the book, not the concept (white defensiveness)), and they do fit better over here, because they constitute a (critical) assessment of DiAngelo's general work, and not just her book. Regarding JC Pan specifically, it is true that his New Republic article reviews the book (White Fragility), but the arguments are about the general philosophy behind DiAngelo's practice, so it also fits here. Fa suisse (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. It seems as though you are now avoiding discussion, after accusing me of such on my talk page. Fa suisse (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I missed your earlier edit because I was busy in real life, but you'll notice that I haven't edited this article since your above talk page comment and in particular I haven't reverted any edits without reading talk page comments properly. The New Republic is a book review. Of course it covers the broader context of the author's life and works—a hefty proportion of book reviews do—but we cannot cherry-pick just the book reviews which say the most negative things. For every The New Republic, there are also book reviews of White Fragility which comment on DiAngelo's life and works more generally in a positive manner. Please see WP:DUE.

As for Newkirk's book, I'm quite willing to see its relevance if you can give me some relevant quotes, where the author talks about DiAngelo (maybe chapters and page numbers are enough—I can check later if I have access to the book). My previous objection was because the material was unsourced. But if you want to cite Newkirk then cite Newkirk, not JC Pan. The New Republic is a comparison made by the reviewer, so cannot be attributed to Newkirk. Your edit said NYU journalism professor Pamela Newkirk criticized the type of diversity training programmes conducted by DiAngelo as fact, so it needs a factual source rather than an opinion source (the reviewer drawing a comparison of their own between Newkirk's arguments and DiAngelo's work). Citing Newkirk directly gets around the issue you are right to point out, I guess we could reword the paragraph to make it clearer these opinions and views are presented by JC Pan, which would be a clunky and imperfect solution. — Bilorv (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"White Fragility viewed as racially inflammatory"

This is about this disputed edit, saying "White Fragility also received poor reception in the African American community, as shown by a piece in The Alantic published in 2020 that is heavily critical of the book.". I don't think it's enough to cite one opinion piece as evidence of how the book was received in an entire community. Yes, The Atlantic is a notable publication, but it doesn't actually say ""White Fragility received poor reception in the African American community", it just says "I, personally, don't think it's good for Black people", which is not the same thing. If we want to write it received poor reception (by the way "received poor reception" is an awkward turn of phrase), we either need to cite a notable publication saying "the African American community didn't like it", or we need to cite multiple sources representative of the African American community saying they didn't like it. Not just one person. --GRuban (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Response: I am on high alert to white washing of the large negative backlash this author has experienced. I think it is a disservice to have a reader of Robin DiAngelo and similar authors wikipedia pages coming away with no mention of how inflammatory her work is to so many Americans. There's a lot of white washing of conservative views right now and every time I look at the controversy section its smaller and smaller. No one here seems to edit so much as delete information that is critical of the author. I think Wikipedia can rise above the political nonsense that is going on right now in this country.

I have been trying to locate a number of more mainstream sources of information that have better name recognition, such as the Atlantic or the Washington Post, I think at the very least a citation should exist to the Atlantic Article as it is a new perspective that is critical of her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.128.105 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

How about we don't whitewash the wealth of positive reviews such as those in Los Angeles Review of Books, New Statesman, The New Yorker, Publishers Weekly, Times of India etc.? It clearly violates WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV to say "black people hated the book" based on one black person's opinion. It does the same to single out the negative literature over the positive literature, when there's substantial amounts of both.

You should not "try to locate a number of more mainstream sources of information" that support the conclusion you have decided to find. This is antithetical to Wikipedia's purpose. A constructive contributor aims only to find the highest-quality sources and determines from those what the overall response was. — Bilorv (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Positive review isn't white washed, its 90% of the wikipedia page, burying negative reaction to the author is deplorable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:67F:81E6:1CD2:BE43:629F:CD25 (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This work has received equal if not greater negative review, if one likes the book or not correlates with political party. Hiding this important fact from history is disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:67F:81E6:1CD2:BE43:629F:CD25 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv shouldn't hide information that conflicts with his/her/their worldview. That is anti-wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:67F:81E6:1CD2:BE43:629F:CD25 (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

What's with the white-washing of this article?

DiAngelo was born Robin Jeanne Taylor into a white working-class family in San Jose, California, the youngest of three daughters born to Robert Z.

She was born into a Jewish working-class family in California, not a white family. We are ethnically semitic, not germanic, slavic, etc. We are genetically identical to arabs, are arabs "white"? No, they're semitic. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see the reliable sources associated with that statement and cite reliable sources about DiAngelo which relate to the changes you wish to be made. A warning: race-related pseudoscience will not be tolerated. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Bergner in NYT

Pengortm, you've been reverted now twice by Grayfell and once by me (123). Waiting two weeks and then reinstating with minor changes is not a substitute for discussion on a matter that will clearly be contentious. Grayfell actually said this directly: At this point you should discuss on talk before restoring again. See WP:BRD. Your first edit also says "re-inserting this" though I don't see where/why it was originally removed—if someone could point that out to me that'd be great because I'm a bit confused.

Anyway, the matter at hand is whether to include this NYT source by Bergner and if so, how to summarize. It seems to me that the material you're adding is cherry-picked and excessively negative. I assume you must have read the source in full in order to be able to pick out this passage buried halfway within it, so you'll understand what I mean. Why not include DiAngelo's response to this particular topic or any other topics discussed? I am still reading this source as I write this, because it's quite long, but the skim-reading and full reading of parts of it I have done is enough for me to establish that this isn't a due weight summary of the source. — Bilorv (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I have substantively addressed concerns after each revert. You are correct that I did not intend to summarize the entire article with this passage and I believe this is a misinterpretation of WP:DUE to say that an entire summary of the article is needed. If you think other portions of the NYT article should be referenced, by all means add them--but this seems a poor reason to remove the information I have added. The effectiveness of these trainings as deemed by experts in the field seems a highly pertinent topic to include. -Pengortm (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no issue ipso facto with including some information from a source but not other information, but my comment was referring to a more specific case than that. Can you explain why you think it's appropriate under WP:DUE, WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX to pick out very negative information about a person from a source and quote only that part in several lines of detail? Or why you omitted DiAngelo's response to Dobbin? — Bilorv (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The effectiveness of trainings are very important and trainings are a big part of what the subject of the article is now known for. It seems like an important detail to include. It appears you may be trying to block the inclusion of something negative here for some reason--raising WP:NPOV issues. -Pengortm (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand the position taken to exclude this information. We have a reliable source discussing the position of a qualified Harvard Professor. The fact that an editor did not find other content from the article to add is not an argument against inclusion of a Reliably sourced section especially as most of the article is a running narrative of the class that seems to mostly cover information already included or is opinion of the author. Additionally, the lack of inclusion of her response could have been corrected by adding in the response, not reverting. Slywriter (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't support the exclusion of the position of a qualified Harvard Professor, but the cherry-picking to paraphrase a few negative words of a very long and detailed article which reflects a complex and substantial viewpoint. If you want to read the source and summarize with due weight all aspects of Bergner's research (that are directly about DiAngelo) along with DiAngelo's response then I would welcome it but notice that Pengortm freely said they did not intend to summarize the entire article with this passage. From what I recall when I read it, the summary is based on a small and particularly negative portion of the very detailed article, a WP:BLP issue with respect to DiAngelo. It should not surprise you to learn that an 8500-word article entitled "'White Fragility' Is Everywhere. But Does Antiracism Training Work?" cannot be accurately summarized by "No, probably not". It's not simply that DiAngelo's response to this small passage is omitted but that the passage is presented out of context.

Reading this source again and summarizing (which might take two hours or so) is one of a few hundred tasks I would like to get around to but I don't put it as high priority because it's not one of the tasks that no-one else will do if I don't do it (unlike most of the rest of my list, like my most recent edit in which I spent 6 hours responding to this) and it's got a high chance of being reverted by somebody who simply doesn't like what the source says. If you'd like to have a stab at it, expand the article with the source (it looks very useful) and then we can discuss those changes. — Bilorv (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a deeper dive into the NYT article over the next few days as I only did a quick read to catch up on the issue at hand. I'm still not in agreement with the general statement that the NYT article needs to be summed up. Taking only a section isn't inherently wrong and once the source is listed, other editors can always find additional information to add. Out of context is a more substantial issue and one that certainly needs to be avoided. Anyway, I'll drop something on talk once I have it. No reason to debate the issue through edit notes and reverts, just annoys everyone. Slywriter (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Personal politics and bias being inserted by lead editors

I edited this article making a factual statement and it was reverted due to forgetting to cite a source. All right, fine. I re-edited the article WITH the source cited, and editor Slywriter reverted it again with the accusation of using "weasel words" (Of which I had to look up as I've never heard the term before which state "saying something that is ambiguous or misleading") Nothing I added was ambiguous or misleading as it was a direct quote of the article that was cited. It is my personal belief that he is letting his personal politics dictate what is allowed in his opinion. Wikipedia is not supposed to lean one way or another, left or right, but merely a statement of fact, which is what I added. I didn't offer my opinion on the matter, merely stated (and cited) a fact. This is why I don't have many edits, most of the leads here are flagrantly biased, and to use modern slang, "woke" and do not like statements of fact that do not reinforce their personal ideals — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheuerman2 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

First read WP:AGF. Second, the use of the word "ironically" is unambiguously WP:Weasel and inappropriate for use in an encyclopedia. Third, I have zero issue with the content, merely the use of "Ironically" and the placement in the lede which is a summary of the article not a place to drop a quote. Slywriter (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The content was right to be removed. It is necessary but not sufficient for something to be true and well-sourced for it to be included: it also has to be due weight. The lead is a summary of the body and one review in The Atlantic, one of dozens about just one part of DiAngelo's career, is obviously not due weight. I also don't think we can really help if you think "Ironically, it has been deemed racist" is something an encyclopedia (rather than a tabloid) would say. — Bilorv (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. Equally, editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles.

Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources; alternatively, they may be tagged with the

, , or similar templates to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the problem). " Perhaps you should read it too.

You could have just removed the single word that so offended you and dropped it in another section you deem more appropriate with a note to me for future edits, not the total removal of the cited edit Scheuerman2 (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm done. You may both have a nice day

Scheuerman2 (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so volunteers need to assume that each other are acting in good faith and not respond abrasively to constructive feedback. It appears that you have not understood our feedback, as you have not responded to the thrust of the points made (that a word can sometimes not be a weasel word is not an argument that it isn't in this case), so you would do better to ask "I don't understand this specific point because of this reason—can you explain further?" rather than quoting something that the two people you're responding to have obviously read many times in their years of experience on the website. So let me ask you a question back: reading only the two comments above, can you give a reason why dropping the word "ironically" would not have addressed all of the issues with your edit? Additionally, you seem to say that the The Atlantic article should not be removed from Wikipedia altogether, which you're right about—can you tell me where this content actually belongs (hint: you'll find it has already been there for many months already)?

And since you seem to not be able to move past the idea that we are motivated by personal opinion, maybe it'll help dispel that myth if I say that I personally do not like DiAngelo and disagree with many of her ideas. — Bilorv (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Whenever we assume, we make a donkey out of each other. We should presume Good Faith of each other, but what about when there is bad faith? Just force the good faith victim that they are wrong? ... Ironically is a word and, if there is no place for that word on Wikipedia, how about we delete the page on Irony? It can be a rhetorical device, yet also be a fact of what has happened. It is in the past, and requires analysis as a past event. ... Wishing you the best, always. 2600:8800:5105:2B01:E00B:328B:3E35:BF40 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring over "Controversy" section & book mention in lede

@2601:602:67F:81E6:1CD2:BE43:629F:CD25: Please don't edit war over these — WP:CSECTION says that a specific section for controversies is discouraged, and I believe that the book is rather important and should be mention in the lede. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 22:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Might be accurate to create a separate para for the "Linkedin controversy", given this is acknowledged and confirmed by DiAngelo's own statement "A Note on the Recent Coca-Cola / Big Think / LinkedIn Controversy"? Obsteve (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No section should contain the word "controversy" in its title per WP:CSECTION and the fact that we are not a tabloid, gossip rag or internet forum. If something receives praise and criticism then describe it as such. If it receives criticism only then describe it as such. No mincing words. — Bilorv (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

How about "negative publicity" to replace "controversy" as it currently appears on the page? Obsteve (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

An improvement in my eyes, so I've made the change. — Bilorv (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

Change current headshot with this:

Robin DiAngelo Head Shot

Robin DiAngelo

Kolbester (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It does not appear you own the copyright to this image, as I see it used elsewhere on the internet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That's a beautiful photo, and we thank you for it, but the EXIF says "Copyright holder: Photograph by Stuart Isett.©2021 Stuart Isett. All rights reserved." So we'll need to be sure Mr. Isett has released the photo for reuse and modification by everyone, like the rest of the Wikipedia. The way to do that is for him to write OTRS, identifying himself, and saying so, as described in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS. It might take a few emails back and forth. Or he can put a notice to that effect, something like "This photograph licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license" next to that photograph on a website known to be controlled by him; I'm guessing that would be https://www.isett.com/ ? That might be faster; if you do it that way, you can drop a note on my talk page, and I'll review it, and put it in the article. If you can't do either of those, we'll have to remove the image from Commons, I'm afraid, since we try to respect copyright. --GRuban (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Better sources needed for "works in critical discourse analysis and whiteness studies"

It's currently self-sourced and sourced to an op-ed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is the primary source not fine to verify what field of study an academic specializes in? — Bilorv (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice Racism: How Progressive White People Perpetuate Racial Harm

Book review to consider including on her new book - [1] in case someone else gets time to go over before me-Pengortm (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Infopacket as a source

Regarding this edit, it seems WP:UNDUE to pull one arbitrary sentence out of her event requirements and highlight it in the article; requirements like that are, to my understanding, typical and unexceptional, whereas highlighting it in the text carries the unsourced implication that it is unusual, exceptional, and somehow significant. In any case we would need a secondary source indicating its significance to include it in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If the book received mixed reception, as we say, then it is undue weight to have 1 sentence on criticism and 0 on praise: the quotes previously counterbalanced Her definition of white fragility has been criticized as being broad, reductive, and tautological. What sentence would you suggest instead, Aquillion, as a good summary of the praise of the book? — Bilorv (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Er, did you mean to post this in a different section? The bit I'm talking about isn't about criticism or praise; perhaps this ought to have new section. Anyway, there are two options. One, the New Yorker piece we're citing for that bit itself says (in the very paragraph before) Major corporations, such as Amazon and Facebook, embraced the slogan “Black Lives Matter” and brought DiAngelo in to speak. Millions of Americans began to consider concepts such as systemic racism and look anew at the racial disparities in law enforcement, and DiAngelo became a guide for many of them. So we could summarize that, as the most straightforward option; the source itself essentially contrasts the criticism with that positive reception. Alternatively, or in addition to that, we could go over the sources we currently describe as praising her and summarize what they actually say, collectively. --Aquillion (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Not quite sure how I mixed this up but I thought you were the person who made this edit and this was the reasoning for it. Addressed that separately. I agree that your removal here is right. — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Coca Cola "controversy"

How reliable is it? A lot of the reporting is done by either conservative news sources or dubious ones, and it's basically screenshots shared with no evidence they are authentic. 174.93.250.35 (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The current paragraph seems uncontroversial in fact but could use many more reliable sources (which I understand to exist) to show due weight, as the single reliable source wouldn't suffice. If you can source the claim that the backlash is by conservatives ("dubious" source backlash should simply be ignored) then that's worth attributing around the bit where the text reads "came under scrutiny". — Bilorv (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Added Newsweek as a citation, though still would like a source that doesn't use theblaze to confirm Coca-Cola's statement. Slywriter (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Snopes did a brief piece into it, and while they can confirm the slides, they can't confirm if it's "required viewing" of Coca-Cola's educational department as many conservative sources claim. User:Kittensfury (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither does wikipedia. We used Coca-cola's own words, "part of a series...not a focus..." Slywriter (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9749517/An-anti-racist-author-Robin-DiAngelo-makes-728K-year-speaking-engagements.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:25C0:6C8:DC7A:9DC9:F093:ED8C (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to attribute the "be less white" statements to DiAngelo, who made the remarks herself in the interview. To attribute the comments to "the course" is vague, and ultimately misleading, giving the false impression that she did not give the very specific advice and explanations that she did. Obsteve (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course. Whether Coca Cola made the course compulsory is a deflection from the fact that Coca Cola sought to use it in some capacity. Which company DiAngelo happened to make the "be less white" statement to originally is a deflection from the fact that she is indeed the person who made the statement. I can understand that for reasons of encyclopedic neutrality, it may be necessary to include quotes from the subject of the article, even when the content of those quotes is of questionable veracity. But I don't see any compelling reason to include quotes by DiAngelo (or Coca Cola) that don't even attempt to address the reason that there was a controversy in the first place. It's like responding to "there is a provision in line 427 of the bill that legalizes drunk driving" with "actually it's in line 430, nothing to see here folks". Poemisaglock (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Author?

Surely somebody should be described as their primary income. She is a business woman selling her courses to corporate America? Rustygecko (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

No, many people on Wikipedia are not described by their primary income (which is generally not public information). They are described by the primary reason for their notability. People are not generally notable because they run corporate courses. — Bilorv (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't her primary notability come from the fact that she is a controversial figure who apparently views all whites as racist (a racist view in and of itself)? That is how most people know her, even those who agree with her. Or is it implicit in Wikipedia that one can be openly negative towards whites without any sort of "bias" labeling, but if one can be construed as negative towards any nonwhite or Jewish white they get the label "white supremacist" or "anti-semitic"? I'm not being purposefully obtuse, I geniunely want to understand what sort of educational material wikipedia wants to put out. It will really help future editors if can streamline this process. One simply would need to check the identity of the individual and then the label could be applied, almost algorithmically (i.e. White or nonwhite? > White. Jewish? > Non-jew. Negative opinions about white people? > insert: "anti-racist advocate and public intellectual known for whiteness studies" Negative opinions on nonwhites or Jews? > insert: "White supremacist and anti-semitic conspiracy theorist") I think this will greatly aid every hard-working Wikipedia editor in disseminating who unsuspecting readers should mock and hate. Just a tip! 126.166.149.176 (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your comment contains no reliable sources, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source based on (mostly secondary) references with no original research. If you believe we should add, for instance, the text "Supporters of DiAngelo largely view all white people as racist, which is a racist opinion" then please give the sources that say that. Some examples of reliable and unreliable sources (just for a rule of thumb) are given at WP:RSP. — Bilorv (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It is obviously not necessary, or a good use of time, to do the work of writing the article in order to make a comment about how to write it. Finding sources takes time. In the discussion above there is a section "scrubbed criticism". You demanded sources for that comment. Sources were provided. You responded "Okay, so?". It's been asserted that there was a well sourced criticism section that has been whittled down and removed. That's a matter of record. I can see a lot of people (probably busy people) trying to make sensible, reasonable, well sourced edits that reflect reality, but being shut down.

I'm not sure we should add the text "Supporters of DiAngelo largely view all white people as racist, which is a racist opinion", as though that is a fact. However, it is a criticism that has been levelled against her and her supporters many, many times, by many, many people. We both know that's true. That information needs to be reflected in her wikipedia biography, ideally in a criticism section so that people know it's a criticism, not a fact. 2A02:C7F:5D42:D700:99AC:5C0D:146B:DBAD (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Robin DiAngelo Jewish?

At the bottom of the page, one of the categories that Robin DiAngelo is listed under is the category Category:Jewish American writers. However, nowhere in the article does it indicate that Robin DiAngelo is Jewish. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed. Categories still need to be verifiable to a cited reliable source. Thanks for flagging the issue! — Bilorv (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Add ‘Controversy’ section

Somebody more versed in Wikipedia editing should add a ‘Controversy’ section. For example, her statement that ‘there is no good form of whiteness’ attracted widespread criticism, sources of which can easily be found with a quick Google search. 77.99.9.128 (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:CSECTION, content should not be segregated based on whether it is positive or negative. Criticism or praise (in accurate proportion) should be included directly alongside facts. — Bilorv (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)