Jump to content

Talk:Woke/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Suggested edits

How about, in the article's criticism/analyses section, some paraphrase -- along with what explanatory elaboration would be needed -- of (Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan[6]), "[The Atlantic's ]Anne Applebaum links the woke phenomenon to previous moral panics and mob persecutions"?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sullivan's self-published Substack newsletter is not reliable for anything but his own opinions. His interpretation of Applebaum's essay is WP:UNDUE and off-base, considering that Applebaum hardly uses the term "woke", and doesn't even say what she means by it. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I never suggested referencing, per se, this piece by Sullivan.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
What does woke phenomenon mean
Applebaum: In America, of course, we don’t have that kind of state coercion[ (applebaum had been referencing Turkish journalists' self-censorship under Erdoğanizm) ]. There are currently no laws that shape what academics or journalists can say; there is no government censor, no ruling-party censor. But fear of the internet mob, the office mob, or the peer-group mob is producing some similar outcomes. How many American manuscripts now remain in desk drawers—or unwritten altogether—because their authors fear a similarly arbitrary judgment? .. This censoriousness is related not just to recent, and often positive, changes in attitudes toward race and gender, and to accompanying changes in the language used to discuss them, but to other social changes that are more rarely acknowledged.
Or (to go slightly lower brow) put "woke mob" in quotation marks into google, even, delimit clicking to quite prestigious of news sites and find people directly/indirectly quoted about what Applebaum's piece laments.
But (for one higher-brow paraphrase of the gist of what woke ideology entails), the piece "The Illiberal Left. How Did American 'Wokeness' Jump from Elite Schools to Everyday Life? And How Deep Will Its Influence Be?" in the 24sep2021londoneconomist offers: norms of free speech, individualism and universalism which pretend to be progressive are really camouflage for this discrimination; and that injustice will persist until systems of language and privilege are dismantled"
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I never suggested referencing, per se, this piece by Sullivan – then what was the point of quoting it here?
Where does Applebaum say fear of the internet mob, the office mob, or the peer-group mob is related to "woke(ness)"?
... find people directly/indirectly quoted about what Applebaum's piece laments – what does that have to do with "woke(ness)"? Please refer again to WP:SYNTH before responding. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
There's no need to refer to wp:Synth because I will reference Applebaum's own assertions, as credited to her, instead of inserting my own. Assuming the further iterations of this "50"-questions approach is also in good faith and not some end (although fun) in itself, I'll go ahead and answer that I quoted the briton-&-now-yanqui Mr Sullivan with "hat tip" -- hoping to communicate by this webspeak my giving Talkpage-credit to materials/sourcings of Andrew's I'd "mined." (I'll look up the term. Wikipedia: "act of .. doffing one's hat as a cultural expression of recognition, respect, gratitude or simple salutation and acknowledgement between two persons." Merriam-Webster: "at home on Twitter, where it's used to tell the people your followers that something you're tweeting about was brought to your attention by someone else." Macmillon: "something that you say, especially when writing on the Internet, to show that you are grateful to someone for giving you information.")
If there's no substantive objections to be raised, I'll go ahead and reference Applebaum's coverage of woke movement in the article. Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Applebaum's essay contains no coverage of any woke movement. That is pure WP:OR. See additional comments below. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
... for one higher-brow paraphrase of the gist of what woke ideology entails – scholars and activists generally don't describe their own position(s) as "woke ideology" or claim to be part of a "Great Awokening", as The Economist phrases it, suggesting that these terms are not used neutrally, but as deliberate insults. That much is clear from the sources we already have. How exactly do you suggest we cite The Economist here? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
How exactly do you suggest we cite The Economist here? I'm stunned about the sensitivity to insult here. Being able to use the term "Woke" both admiringly and not-admiringly is ESSENTIAL, both at large and within Wikipedia. It's established that the grassroots movement within Western intelligentsia that supports a pendulum swing away from encouraging hearers how to think toward encouraging them what to think has become labeled by both its adherents and critics "Woke." And, whereas some think the illiberal movement's altruistic motives renders it, overall, wholesome; others, don't. Among the number of observers who find themselves in this latter camp is the London Economist (which more-so "centrist" of news source hasn't any bylines and what it publishes is simply in the voice of the Economist).
Indeed: That the movement spoken of has become notable, it obviously merits coverage in Wikipedia; and, for sourcing in this regard, it behooves tertiary editors to look to the most unbiased sourcing available. Thus, looking, say, at Ad Fontes Media's nifty news orgs' aggregate bias-&-reliability chart[7], we find that adfontes plots, for example, thehill ever-so-slightly left of smack-dab center; then, just a wee-bit left of thehill, it plots the lot apnews, CNBC, reuters, bloomberg, and the economist, with most of the rest of what's often referred to as the MSM running to various degrees to the leftward of these mentioned. So it is patently obvious that we will obtain more neutral and objective coverage by grounding this same in sources that are the least infected by the illiberal, grassroots phenomenon referred to, RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The Economist informs us, about the phenomenon about which we hope to give coverage, "political scientists such as Zachary Goldberg call[ it ]the Great Awokening."(*) We could paraphrase or quote that in our article.
-------
(*)(Note: After a supplementary examination, we find that Goldberg has provided his professional coverage in Tablet of "How the Media Led the Great Racial Awakening," with this article's dek's reading, "Years before Trump’s election the media dramatically increased coverage of racism and embraced new theories of racial consciousness that set the stage for the latest unrest"[8]. Goldberg's examination, here, of grass-roots' advocacy among journalists need not be referenced in our article (certainly as, itself, primary sourcing for it); but IMHO the fact of the Economist's finding Goldberg's terminology "the Great Awokening" notable is something of inherent interest/importance for readers toward their understand what observers say about this phenomenon we're covering.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Ad Fontes Media is a self-published source given little to no credence here, as its conclusions are, at best, little more than unsupportable opinion and, at worst, ludicrous nonsense. No one who regularly reads The Hill would describe it as "left of center" in any possible way.
Your demand that we discredit reliable sources for no other reason than your unsourced, unsupported, opinionated declaration that they are infected by the illiberal, grassroots phenomenon referred to is, quite simply, contrary to Wikipedia policy and will be summarily ignored. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
You inquire (I paraphrase) what ideology Anne refers to, about things transpiring in the wake of the recently-arrived ____blank_____ movement (Sincerely: What name's your preference?), wherein, per Anne Right here in America, right now, it is possible to meet people who have lost everything—jobs, money, friends, colleagues—after violating no laws, and sometimes no workplace rules either. Instead, they have broken (or are accused of having broken) social codes having to do with race, sex, personal behavior, or even acceptable humor, which may not have existed five years ago or maybe five months ago. Let's see. In her set-up to this, Anne refers to "woke" ideology -- as well as to its "anti-woke" counterpart. Perhaps even sometimes what she's referring to this type of mob action transpiring in anti-woke circumstances(?). An important nuance -- and, indeed, Anne professes, here[9], {{"the process of radicalization[ can be ]mutually reinforcing"}}. (It seems she argues against both from the middle.) Yet, in taking on the one side -- in her obvious reference to woke social-justice activism -- she expresses her belief that {{"Dangerous intellectual fashions are sweeping through some American universities—the humanities departments .. to restrict what others can teach, think, and say. Left-wing Twitter mobs do attack people who have deviated from their party line, trying not just to silence them but to get them fired. .. 'an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty'}} (which is not to say -- after the most cursory glance at her oeuvre -- that she portrays in rosy hue any il-liberal reactions to woke ideology among those on the other side of the political spectrum, either).
You wrote: scholars .. generally don't describe their own position(s) as 'woke ideology'. Some scholars obviously (if, perhaps unfortunately!) do ascribe to this ideology, however. (The Economist[10], "woke .. is now pilloried on both the right and the left. .. It was redefined to mean following an intolerant and moralising ideology.") --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
My offered "diff" -

“In 2021, The Atlantic's Anne Applebaum laments an atmosphere within the clash between the woke- versus anti-woke movements wherein she argues that individuals, in fear a "modern mob justice" at the hands of such activists, feel pressured toward social-and-thought conformity, which parallels, she believes, similar atmospheres historically in Eastern Europe during its Sovietization as well as the one in present-day Turkey. "Social codes are changing, in many ways for the better. But for those whose behavior doesn’t adapt fast enough to the new norms, judgment can be swift — and merciless."https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/10/new-puritans-mob-justice-canceled/619818/”

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the topic of this article, which is the term "woke", its history, usage, and cultural impact, not any given "ideology". Your own source (Applebaum) contradicts your proposed text: you will often find not an obvious argument between “woke” and “anti-woke” perspectives but rather incidents that are interpreted, described, or remembered by different people in different ways. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Sure. This 'Wikipedia as Wiktionary-lite' ploy works great. If one's goal is use of Wikipedia as yet another venue for the ideology represented by the term-in-question's promotion.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The ploy, as you call it, is to summarize points of view according to their prominence in reliable sources. Two users now have explained that Applebaum's essay doesn't say what you think it says. Please explain why you think they are wrong. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. So since some crew think some /X/ is important so assert /Y/ and so my observation /Z/ must be thrown out? Of course, you are free to believe what but I won't be thus gaslighted. Although asking why somebody else believes or says /W/ is a famous question to ask someone being interrogated, my answer remains: All the people who've read Applebaum's essay and whose commentary on it have agreed with my reading and thus remain secure in my-and-our composite ability to comprehend her gist in it. But, in response to your question as to why your cited individuals can't see this obvious reality, for you to ascertain to what degree this situation might be ascribed to cynicism or to some yet other cause, is a topic on which it's not for me to speak; and, you'll have to find some other way to ascertain that, for yourself.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
So since some crew think some /X/ is important so assert /Y/ and so my observation /Z/ must be thrown out? NorthBySouthBaranof and I have pointed out that Applebaum says it's not just a conflict between "woke" and "anti-woke". Your inference, stated in Wikipedia' voice, that Applebaum really meant the opposite of that breaches our No original research policy.
All the people who've read Applebaum's essay and whose commentary on it have agreed with my reading and thus remain secure in my-and-our composite ability to comprehend her gist in it. Good for them. Unless they published their reading in a reliable source, we can't use it. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
So much for I will reference Applebaum's own assertions ... instead of inserting my own. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I said describe, not ascribe. No one calls their own beliefs "woke ideology". That term is a partisan insult flagging the source as opinion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Let me go on the record that "Because-Applembaum-finds-nuances-within-the-woke-debate-we,-therefore,-can't-use-her-analysis" makes zero sense. (Btw, we can learn much from Applebaum's interesting 2020 tweet disagreeing with how[ her fellow center-right ]London Times uses, in a piece about Orbán, the word woke. It appears that her definition of the term is as "an import from American culture war[ .. as mis-]deployed to make it seem like this internal EU argument over the rule of law has something to do with a hot debate in the English-speaking world." Translation: A "hot" debate is going on in the English-speaking world she shorthands with woke -- the pivot of which["woke" debate ]being different than that of the EU's "rule-of-law" concerns.) // Viktor Orbán (published this morning)[11]: "In America, after a liberal hegemony removing conservatives and their thoughts from the equation, Neo-Marxism – referred to as 'woke' over there – is taking control of the institutions that shape thought and public thinking. .. I'm convinced that our current debates with the West — for the sake of simplicity, let’s call it Brussels — the disputes between Brussels and Hungary stem from that very difference."
One gambit is, I'm asked "Twenty Questions" about philosophical issues, then, taking the bait, my Talkpage is one templated about discussion unmoored to edits. Fun as this discussion is: I can point out that it's yesterday's NewYorker that includes the line[12] ".. Orbán had described how Hungarians, during the Soviet era, had been exposed to a programmatic left-wing effort to create Homo sovieticus, the new Soviet man, and so recognized woke progressive ideology as a totalitarian ideology itself." Yet: You argue (and an entire section of our article remains that is based on the tautology) that because[ due only, of course, to woke's well-established semantic shift ]it's such critics such as Orbán of Hungarian-LGBTQ+-rights-proponents labeling them "woke," and this not-so-much self-labeling, therefore the raft of headlines[13] utilizing a shorthand about such-as-Hungary's war on woke are discountable, for our article's purposes! But the shibboleth is too extreme. How folks self-identify is but one important factor among many. (Eg although there might be a separate article one day on the self-identifying linguistic term "La Costa Nostra," at present, it re-directs to the more general article American Mafia -- the more-so outsider term, as used in most analysis and criticism. (Ditto "Pro-life" --> Anti-abortion movements.))
For a couple cites re orban's argument "neomarxism = woke," see diff.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone has said "Because-[Applebaum]-finds-nuances-within-the-woke-debate-we,-therefore,-can't-use-her-analysis". What "woke debate" would that be, exactly? We can learn much from Applebaum's interesting 2020 tweet – Twitter is largely not usable as a source. Regardless, her equating "woke" with "a hot debate" seems to work against the idea that she is assigning the term to a particular side in the culture war. This article is not about woke progressive ideology, whatever that means. I certainly never meant to imply that discussion on philosophical issues was wanted. I believe I have tried to steer the conversation away from such use of the talk page as a forum. My apologies for any misunderstanding. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Your open-ended question What's the hot debate about woke referred to by Applebaum invites analysis of -- to what hot debate about woke Applebaum refers. Which might lead to her twitter stream. Then< yawns >you boilerplate Re use of Twitter in... mainspace! Rinse and repeat. In contrast, your predecessor-in-inquiring-conversation Socrates (Father of[ Western ]Thought who conversed but authored nary a word) asked specifically-crafted-and-binary questions chosen with the intent to gain agreement on a foundational point, to proceed from there. As for the generalized question, though, I gave above my précis of Anne's position with regard to this hot debate.

“In 2021, The Atlantic's Anne Applebaum laments an atmosphere within the clash between the woke- versus anti-woke movements wherein she argues that individuals, in fear a "modern mob justice" at the hands of such activists, feel pressured toward social-and-thought conformity, which parallels, she believes, similar atmospheres historically in Eastern Europe during its Sovietization as well as the one in present-day Turkey. "Social codes are changing, in many ways for the better. But for those whose behavior doesn’t adapt fast enough to the new norms, judgment can be swift — and merciless."https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/10/new-puritans-mob-justice-canceled/619818/”

Sangdeboeuf: >>>>>her equating "woke" with "a hot debate" seems to work against the idea that she is assigning the term to a particular side in the culture war.<<<<<
Kudos for your reading comprehension of this précis. As you correctly see within it, Anne's analysis does not assign the term to a particular side in the culture war. Thank you.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
In that case the phrase woke- versus anti-woke movements makes zero sense. Where does Applebaum refer to any "woke" movement? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
checkY Okay!; see diff. Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
To repeat, where does Applebaum describe any "clash between the woke- versus anti-woke perspectives"? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Replacing the word "movements" with "perspectives" does not address the main problem with this citation, earlier explained by NorthBySouthBaranof (besides undue weight, which is also a problem): Applebaum's essay uses the word "woke" a total of three times, and none of them clearly describe what she's talking about. Applebaum clearly objects to "modern mob justice" but it is not at all clear that Applebaum wishes to paint with such a broad brush as to describe "woke" in this manner. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
(1) Recasting a question ain't a "repetition" except if and only if both essentially say the same thing (which they, of course, didn't). (2) Per my reading of Anne's piece ("The New Puritans: Social codes are changing, in many ways for the better. But for those whose behavior doesn't adapt fast enough to the new norms, judgment can be swift—and merciless") she alludes in title and dek to diametrically-opposed perspectives. Which, in the article's text itself (I suppose for the benefit of living in a cave away from mass media for a decade), she specifies these same with their by now usual codification as a debate of "woke" vs. its "anti-" (via her words): "dig into the story of anyone who has been a genuine victim of modern mob justice and you will often find not an obvious argument between 'woke' and 'anti-woke' perspectives but rather incidents that are interpreted, described, or remembered by different people in different ways, even leaving aside whatever political or intellectual issue might be at stake".--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
[Y]ou will often find not an obvious argument between 'woke' and 'anti-woke' perspectives ... Please explain what you think the word "not" means in that sentence, because we seem to think it means different things. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Sure. An item doesn't have to equate to Aristotlean "A." (affirmo) / "E." (nego) statements wherein "S." (subject) "always"/"never" P. (predicate) for it to be useful on Wikipedia. From her context (via its preceding pair of sentences "despite the disputed nature of these cases, it has become both easy and useful for some people to put them into larger narratives" - & - "Partisans, especially on the right, now toss around the phrase cancel culture when they want to defend themselves from criticism, however legitimate"), what Anne's is saying here seems pretty straightforward, IMHO. Which is that individual disputes Re behavior/speech Anne will be referring to won't neatly fold into the larger narrative of 'woke'-v.-'its-"anti-."' Which likewise implies that this larger, overarching debate nonetheless is being played out in part within these very disputes. Viz, types "I." / "O." that are of the nature, Some S. are/are not P. Thus: the usefulness to which Anne refers via "it has become .. useful for some people to put them into larger narratives."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that not an obvious argument between 'woke' and 'anti-woke' perspectives actually means an obvious argument between 'woke' and 'anti-woke' perspectives, based on your interpretation of other things Applebaum says in the essay. Have I got that right? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
From this statement of Anne's in context -- and, as it's compared with what she reports in her piece in its entirety -- I, indeed, read her as believing that (1) there exists an overarching debate (2) yet, individual disputes her piece concerns do not easily and obviously boil down to solely it. Plus, I find nothing in this reading of mine inconsistent from what else I read in her oeuvre; however, I find a reading of her as saying that such disputes' definitively having nothing nill nada WHATSOEVER to do with the woke/not debate (as she also references, if not with this shorthand expression, in its titling and throughout) inconsistent with the whole trifecta: the statement, itself; Anne's overall piece; the temper of her statements, as I've read, as a whole.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
[Edited later via striking]: By way of comparison, saying something is counterintuitive doesn't equate to saying it cannot exist. Elsewise, Pythagoras'/others' allusions to a spherical earth need be wrong, plus the premise of Galileo's that about the rotation of the heavens about the disk of the earth is only seemingly so.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
It's time to drop the stick. You've strayed too far from the source. I can't claim to have followed every part of your voluminous argument, and some parts I agree with, but it's clear this particular source is not on-topic and not worth talking about here anymore. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Any inferences based on other parts of the essay, or Applebaum's larger oeuvre, are obvious improper synthesis. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Answering questions to eternity = TLDR, true. Anne implores readers to forego the more limited utility of polarized simplicity (ie ALL the current awakening is ignoble/noble; shamings of close-to-innocents, as is attendant, LIKEWISE so) in favor of a greater utility within her more complex analysis (as I'd paraphrase MOST awakening is noble but for SOME shamings). And, fwiw, it's by this rubric that her woke/anti statement, in the context of its introductory pair of sentences concerning Righties' oversimplification of "All cancelation = bad" and the context of the rest of her piece, makes the most sense.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
This is pure WP:OR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
This, like all extracts, wasn't intended to be anything special but just an obvious and straightforward summary of what she wrote. If something I paraphrased missed the mark, I's suggest you simply say how you believe it should read, instead (or, as perhaps another option, I suppose: to say that you believe the original to be, for whatever reason, insusceptible to easy summarization).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the option you missed is: not including this essay. If we are going to include an opinion source, I'd say a fair inclusion criteria is that the opinion is specifically about 'woke'. It's not about what extract you pull, because the general point of the essay is not on-topic here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Others have already pointed out the problems with Applebaum's essay as a source. I suggest listening to them. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I wave a white flag. My editorial stance that "the new Puritanism" refers to our[ woke ]era Which notion I got eg from the Guardian[14], which said that woke, which "extends to conversations around art, politics, economic and social class, gender inequality, trans rights and environmentalism," has "bec[o]me the word of our era." -- appears to be (wikieditorially "fringe" Definition: "idea[s ]depart[ing ]significantly from the prevailing[/]mainstream views."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what woke being the word of our era has to do with improving this article. It certainly doesn't mean that passing or trivial uses of the word are suddenly encyclopedic information. Art, politics, economic and social class, gender inequality, trans rights and environmentalism each have their own, separate Wikipedia article. Whatever our [woke] era is supposed to be, it isn't the topic here, and is inherently POV anyway. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  1. Suggegsted edit: Our coverage @ Hungary IMO might be expanded to the UK? (Eg see the financialtimes[15] - "The 'War on Woke': Who Should Shape Britain's History?" .. intertwined with Britain’s reckoning with its colonial past — and the so-called “war on woke” waged by Boris Johnson’s government in response — .. Whether led by “take-it-down” activists or conservative enemies of a “new Puritanism”, Britain’s culture war seems ever more shrill. .. the Johnson government’s battle with so-called “wokery”. .. MPs in the so-called Common Sense Group, which casts itself as a bulwark against “woke ideology”. .. Mercy Muroki, a young think-tanker, academic and rising media star whose debut column in The Sun declared: “I just don’t subscribe to woke, academic culture”. .. “British people don’t subscribe to these ultra-woke ideas, but keep quiet even though they don’t feel comfortable subscribing to these views. The pile-ons work both ways”) --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. Fwiw here's analysis (from the londoneconomist[16]) Re "America’s new religious war. 'Religious Fervour Is Migrating into Politics': The evangelical culture warriors of the right take on the Democrats' new Puritans" .. The most avowedly secular Democrats—well-educated “woke” liberals—are also the likeliest to moralise. Their Puritanical racial and gender ... "--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Not an improvement. Even the current coverage of Letts/Morris/Trump/Murdoch/Orban/Jope is too much IMO. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and not every instance of an opinion columnist or world leader using the word "woke" belongs in an encyclopedia. The topic of the latter essay is not the word "woke" anyway, but liberalism/progressivism in the US. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Restricting coverage to the US's very unWikipedia like.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Where did anyone propose Restricting coverage to the US? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your support and I'm sorry I'd misunderstood you. I.e., I'd misread your reaction to my suggestion we expand coverage to the UK (direct quote "Our coverage .. IMO might be expanded to the UK?") when you'd said you thought that this wouldn't improve the article (in that WP is not a newspaper) to mean that you were against giving more coverage to the UK than the present level of zero. I'm very happy that this was a mistaken understanding, though.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Christian theological professors who incorporate critical race theory into their lectures" and "workplace mandated social-justice initiatives" are not the subject of this article. Critical race theory, liberation theology, diversity training, and social justice all have their own articles; describing Helen Pluckrose's and James A. Lindsay's opposition to them is WP:UNDUE here (and I expect there as well). Not every trivial use of the word "woke" belongs in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a dictionary: 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 that use the term. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I wonder what article text would have resulted were a cadre of editors likewise subtly to have limited WP's encyclopedic coverage of the phenomenon of the Tea Party to proponents' definitions of the term along with a brief section concerning derogatory uses of this term. It's just sad to think of what might have been, were editors hereabouts not inclined toward subtly limiting our encyclopedic [sic] coverage only to what material has the tone of the subject matter's Wikipedia:PROMOTION'.

Note how the correct application of WP:NPOVHOW can be illustrated even by noting the article Tea Party movement's section heads:

Extended content

  1. Agenda
    1.1 Foreign policy

  2. Organization

  3. Etymology

  4. History
    4.1 Background
    4.1.1 Commentaries on origin
    4.2 Early local protest events
    4.3 First national protests and birth of national movement
    4.4 Health care bill
    4.5 U.S. elections
    4.6 IRS controversy
    4.7 Role in the 2016 presidential election
    4.8 Current status

  5. Composition
    5.1 Membership and demographics
    5.2 Polling of supporters
    5.3 Leadership
    5.3.1 Individuals
    5.3.2 Organizations

  6. Fundraising
    6.1 Support of Koch brothers

  7. Public opinion
    7.1 2010 polling
    7.2 After debt-ceiling crisis
    7.3 2012 polling
    7.4 2013 and 2014 polling

  8. Symbols

  9. "Teabagger"

  10. Commentary by the Obama administration

  11. Media coverage
    11.1 Tea Party's views of media coverage

  12. Perceptions of the Tea Party

  13. Controversies . . .

One can dream, can't one! --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Not at all comparable. Tea Party movement is about the movement, not just a word or phrase. "Tea Party" is the most common name for said movement, given to it by members of the movement who wanted to compare themselves to the Boston Tea Party demonstrators. That is different to anti-progressive activists calling things they don't like "woke". All the sources presented so far that describe the so-called "woke movement" or "woke ideology" are activist blogs, opinion essays, and the like, not disinterested third-party sources, which you seem to have conveniently forgotten are needed. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
My point is, if editors applied to the Tea Party movement article the same interpretation of WP's guidelines on the use of opinion pieces that are being applied to this one, there hardly could be any article on the Tea Party movement, due to the nature of movements as a coalescing of opinions and the nature of those giving analyses about them. And any such article edited in like fashion would end up as anemic as ours here.

Also -- sincere question: If it's not being intent on wp:PROMOTION, how does one twist themself into the pretzel of calling the citing of the londontimes, atlantic, londontelegraph, christianpost, austrailianpost, and religiousnews -- are disinterested 3rd-party sources all -- as activist blogs, opinion essays, and the like?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

(1) I didn't; and (2) not all are truly disinterested, especially The Christian Post. Of the other ones not behind a paywall, none offer a concrete definition of the "woke ideology" in question, besides something vaguely to do with (critics' perceptions of) culture wars, diversity training, social justice, and/or critical theory, and none are directly about the term "woke" that I can see. Regarding the Tea Party movement article, other content existing somewhere is not a convincing argument for changing this article. Regardless, Google Scholar returns about 10,000 results for "Tea Party movement", so the idea that that article would be anemic without puffing up with opinion essays and the like doesn't hold water. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC) edited 16:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

30 September 2021

Why highlight Romano's analysis (eg in the pejorative use section)---

but not analyses by the londontimes, atlantic, londontelegraph, christianpost, austrailianpost, and religiousnews?

Much that's going on with concern the woke movement, eg disinterested 3rd party sourcing concerning Woke's global reach, keeps being removed. Some very active Wikipedians select as notable solely material perfectly aligned with proponents' descriptors, for promotional text in Wikipedia's voice that favors this particular narrative.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The answer is simple: unlike your sources, Romano's article is directly about the topic of the article, which is the word "woke". Nor is Romano's article perfectly aligned with proponents' descriptors. It mentions several critiques of how the word is used that do not originate on the right. I see nothing promotional about it. As you yourself have helpfully pointed out, 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 that use the term. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC) The notion of Woke's global reach is itself POV. Any source using this or similar phrasing is unlikely to be disinterested about the topic. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, the UK call line is barely informative at all about 'woke' and I support exclusion of that content. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
The "anti-woke helpline" is already covered under Helen Pluckrose § Counterweight as well. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
cmt - As a side issue: Slate's Rachelle Hampton's[17]] typifying critics' jestful acknowledgement of woke's current ascendency by the term "the wokerati". IMHO we ought to include an entire list in the article to account for such coinages when they've become so much, much more than one-offs.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Reply: From reading Aja Roman's piece (not to mention dipping into her twitter stream), I see that she agrees with you'all and believe woke means something quite distinct from certain things critics think it to mean. (Within this type issue's usual "meta": she/you metaphorically roll your collective eyes at those who collectively roll theirs in return -- both sides' nonetheless thereby recognizing that something's afoot that's of newly-achieved cultural relevancy. But, how can such criticisms be left out without skrimping with regard encyclopedically accounting for the term's present meaning? In analogy with the higher scholarly standards of linguistic description to linguistic prescription, your and her more restrictive definition is fine to be covered but it shouldn't be done exclusively so. Thank god -- toward our ends of assembling more-so impartial and independent reporting -- or, from a different lens than Romano's (if one will?) -- theeconomist of four weeks back ran a cover story on this topic.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
The Economist's cover story doesn't use the word "woke", let alone describe its usage. The topic you're looking for is modern liberalism in the United States. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
The issus is directly on point, as can be seen from its table-of-contents page (to which I'd linked). Note that the issue's Briefing section blurbs the pair of articles:
  1. [18] The Illiberal Left. "How Did American 'Wokeness' Jump from Elite Schools to Everyday Life: And How Deep Will Its Influence Be?"
  2. [19] Imposing Orthodoxy. "Left-Wing Activists Are Using Old Tactics in a New Assault on Liberalism: It Is Possible to Detect Eerie Echoes of the Confessional State of Yore." This second article includes text such as "68% felt that students cannot say what they think..." "The vanguard of the woke revolution are young activists. Belief in foundations of liberalism such as free speech declines with each generation. The Pew Research Centre notes that 40% of millennials favour limiting speech offensive to minorities ..."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The first article could be cited with attribution, but the fact that it uses the term "woke" without any comment on its pejorative meaning is a red flag as to the source's reliability. The second article doesn't define "woke" at all, and is obviously an opinion piece. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

News Re woke from France (esp. about candidates Rousseau/Zemmour)

  1. lexpress.fr[20] [Transl.] - "According to the political scientist, the ideas of the environmentalist candidate Sandrine Rousseau are closer to 'radical feminism' and are part of 'the woke ideology'.[ ]According to the political scientist Pascal Perrineau, professor of the Universities at Sciences Po, the ideas of Sandrine Rousseau meet a certain success within a left which is 'a field of ruins at the ideological level', with a 'woke ideology which profited from this disorder of the left.'"
  2. new.in-24[21] - "[ ]'wokism'. The term, born during the Black Lives Matter protests, refers to activists – on the left – who want to fight against all forms of injustice. They believe that the fight against inequalities should no longer go through the sole fight against economic inequalities, but against all societal inequalities, whether it be sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. The term 'wokism' being used for derogatory purposes, its supporters prefer the term intersectionality.[ ]"
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
If the best sources for a claim are a single political scientist in France and an obscure content farm with no published physical address, let alone editorial staff, then I'd say the claim is WP:FRINGE. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Wokeness, as a concept in French culture, a fringe theory that's only been referenced by this one political scientist? French pres. candidate Sandrine Rousseau has not otherwise been associated with its ideology? Intersectional wokeness is not celebrated by some in France, derided as an unwanted North American import by others? The vast number of "hits" resulting from a quick googling reveal wokeness as not really all that uncommon reference within French political discourse and also an absolute constant within the news coverage given Mme Rousseau's candidacy. See, for example:
  1. madame.lefigaro[22] - "Sandrine Rousseau: '"Radical" comes from the word "root", and the project that I am carrying precisely intends to go to the root of things, of what is dysfunctional in the world and in France. My political project is to awaken awareness of the urgency to act. This word is shocking because no man or woman politician has claimed to be radical so far. I recognize that it can be scary, but we should rather be afraid of what will happen if we don't act.' [...] Madame Figaro: You also claimed to be part of the 'woke' ideology. To what extent? [Rousseau]: 'I did not claim it, I was stuck this label. I am not very familiar with this ideology, I discovered it when I was called a "woke". I understood that to mean being awake to injustices. In this case, we should all be. What fascinates me is that to discredit what I wear, I am referred to a term that is supposed to be scary. It's a way of not hearing what I'm saying.'[ ]"
  2. lesechos.fr[23] - "'Wokism', the Youngest of the Presidential Subjects: Bête Noire of Eric Zemmour and Xavier Bertrand, the 'Woke' Ideology Is for the First Time Assumed by a Candidate, Sandrine Rousseau"
  3. fr.aleteia[24] - "[ ]Sandrine Rousseau has the merit of calling a spade a spade. She is feminist, decolonial and intersectional. She develops in a tone of her own the “woke” theses born across the Atlantic, theses that would like to make room here below, by eradicating the remains of our white and macho civilization in order to replace them with a better world."
  4. magazine-decideurs[25] - "[ ]Sandrine Rousseau, finalist of the EELV primary and assumed figurehead of the 'wokistan' tricolor."
  5. lavoixdunord.fr[26] - "[ ]Sandrine Rousseau Accused of 'Woke': What Are We Talking About?: Coming from across the Atlantic, the Word 'Woke' ('To Be Woken Up' in the Face of Injustices) Has Appeared Several Times in Regional News in Recent Days. But in France Where It Is Still Largely Unknown, It Is the Magic Word for an Assured Controversy ... Decryption."
  6. charliehebdo.fr[27] - "Ecofeminism: A Renaissance with a 'Woke' Flavor: It Is the New Tendency of Feminism, of which the Green Sandrine Rousseau in Particular Is Claimed"
  7. lemonde[28] - "[ ]bring out the ideology 'woke' (a term designating, in English[ ])"
  8. entreprendre.fr[29] - [Lede]: "What credit can be given to a teacher[ French-pres. candidate Sandrine Rousseau ]who would dare to declare without restraint as she does that 'our economic, social and societal system is based on the triptych: the body of women, the body of the most precarious, the body of racialized people (sic)'. In addition to their extremist and caricatural character, such 'eco-feminist' assertions undermine the credibility of our higher education which must resist the rise of this racialist and 'woke' culture which comes to us from the United States and which is sometimes supported financially by Europe.[ ]"
  9. LCI.fr[30] - "Sandrine Rousseau, the First 'Woke' Candidate?"
  10. marianne[31] "Sandrine Rousseau, first Woke Candidate in the Presidential Election?" (Kévin Boucaud-Victoire's interview of Pierre Valentin) - "[ ]seems to tick all the boxes of 'wokism', an ideological sensitivity coming from US campuses which claims to be sensitive to “all oppressions”: sexist, racist, LGBTphobes, wholesalers, validists, etc."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
These are virtually all mostly on the use side of the use–mention distinction. I fail to see how Sandrine Rousseau's politics are relevant to this article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC) edited 02:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
"I fail to see how Sandrine Rousseau's politics are relevant to this article." Unless another article would be initiated for important coverage given the overall woke movement, it would be a service to readers to put encyclopedic information about the notable woke movement – as well as make mention of a politician so often associated with it – here (our noting, of course, that "Use-mention distinction" is no kind of wikiguideline.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
As you helpfully noted, 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 that use the term (see use–mention distinction). "Woke movement" is POV. If any of this material about Rousseau is relevant, it belongs in her bio, not here. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
We all observe that a cultural movement is afoot not only in No. America (and with various manifestations of it that are social and political) w whose premises is the countering-at-its-very-roots the composite oppressions of various groups. What name should be given this seems to currently be "woke" (also, per observations).
Yet, with concern any such philosophical subjects (additionally including of blah blah blah What-"tertiarity"-might-be-most-proper-in-encyclopedia-writing), everything trends toward more and more abstruse abstractions and meta ... to the point that folks hereabout assert, and this, somehow or another, with an entirely straight face, that, for example: (1) This impulse towards such as achieving a post-Colonial world exists only in No. America; and that - (2) Only positive viewpoints concerning a word meaning an awakening to this idea within its No. American context can end up being considered "not merely opinions" - Etc etc etc etc.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
What we all observe is beside the point. Wikipedia does not publish original research. I've already refuted the assertion that the article presents only positive viewpoints. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Really, original research? No: My taking publications' entirely-straightforward usages, with concern a concept (when said are precisely identical to those given in up-to-date dictionaries), in relation to certain events and actors in the French Republic eg the 9feb nytimes's[32] "[certain ]intellectuals have banded together against what they regard as contamination by the out-of-control woke leftism of American campuses" isn't original research but amassing proof, per wikiguidelines, that such concept not only exists there but its doing so has become demonstrably notable.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  1. nytimes' Paris correspondent Norimitsu Onishi uses[ the dictionary definition of ]woke in his 1st line of a 14sep piece[33]: "[ CNews is ]the news network that claims it tells viewers what the 'woke' mainstream media won't." Per Onishi, "The network's[ then ]top personality, Éric Zemmour, has become a national figure.[ ]After the regulator ordered a limit on Mr. Zemmour’s broadcast time because he could be considered a political actor, CNews announced that he would stop appearing on his regular program."
  2. newstatesman[34]: "Zemmour is noted for his sarcasm, unpredictability, finger-jabbing and apparent fearlessness in the face of 'the woke left'."
  3. Zemmour (in 24dec2020 lefigaro[35]): «woke» (éveillés), sensibles à l’écologie, auféminisme, à l’antiracisme et aux thèses décoloniales.
    Machine translates: "[ ]Woke ('awakened'), sensitive to ecology, feminism, anti-racism and decolonial theses."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Summary style

This article has a laser-like focus on the word woke's use in North America (albeit with one child article's being created that concerns its use in a business context). However, per [[wp:Summary style, and, in light of the fact that Wikipedia doesn't ghettoize, per se, business, politics, religion, etc.: Concerning coverage given to the use of the lexical entry woke internationally or even in the English-speaking world in a religious context, where on Wikipedia ought these topics be contributed?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Get Woke, Go Broke

Not sure for sure why this info keeps getting scrubbed from the article, and then commentary about it buried in the archives, but it seems pretty transparent and does Wikipedia no real credit. The lack of neutrality doesn't convince anyone of the rightness of the prevailing ideology, it just encourages them to pursue their own ideology even further

In 2018, science fiction author John Ringo published a paper in which he argued that brands using overt political commentary in their advertising ran the risk of losing market reach and having profits decline. The idea has been encapsulated by the expression "get woke, go broke." [1] High profile examples of this phenomenon include the release of the film Terminator: Dark Fate.

"Another possible reason for the new movie's lackluster performance would be its reputation as a "woke" reboot of the franchise... Whether this is true or not, this reputation could have soured some potential ticket-buyers from attending Dark Fate showings in an era where many Americans are starting to feel movies, TV shows, and other forms of entertainment are just getting too politically-correct. Coined by bestselling author John Ringo, the phrase "Get Woke, Go Broke" certainly comes to mind." (Jeremy Dick, MovieWeb).[2]

Other high-profile marketing campaigns to which the term have been applied by observers include Nike's Colin Kaepernick ads,[3][36] and Gillette's "toxic masculinity" campaign.[4][5]

"Advertising is increasingly the battleground of the culture wars, with big brands like Target, Nike and Starbucks copping backlash, and praise, for taking sides in divisive social and political issues like race, gender and sexuality. But by alienating roughly 50 per cent of potential customers, many brands end up taking a hit to their bottom line - "Get woke, go broke.""[6]

  1. ^ [ https://exchange.cim.co.uk/editorial/when-brands-go-woke-do-they-go-broke/]
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ [2]
  4. ^ [3]
  5. ^ [4]
  6. ^ [5]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.48.147 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

None of these sources are about the topic of the article, which is the word woke, and several are unreliable opinion pieces. Overall this material is highly WP:UNDUE. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

(1) DeRay Mckesson #StayWoke t-shirt (2) Mckesson/Brittany Packnett & StayWoke.org

Off-topic. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)--not off topic. on the topic of the #staywoke hashtag!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Widely-circulated images of activist DeRay Mckesson's 9jul2016 arrest while wearing a t-shirt with the hashtag "stay woke" appear, for better or worse, to have been credited with supercharging the phrase's general usage.

  1. 10jul2016 baltimoresun[37] - "DeRay Mckesson, the prominent civil rights activist who last month was named interim chief human capital officer for Baltimore's public school system after an unsuccessful mayoral bid, was among more than 100 people arrested in Baton Rouge amid nationwide protests against police killings late Saturday and early Sunday."
  2. Cheney-Rice, Zak (27 November 2019). "DeRay Mckesson on the Black Lives Matter Revolution". Intelligencer. Throughout this week, we will be publishing long talks with six people who helped shape the decade — and were shaped by it — to hear what they've learned. [ ] Few American social movements shaped the 2010s as definitively as Black Lives Matter, and few of its activists have proved to be as galvanizing — and controversial — as DeRay Mckesson. The then-29-year-old school administrator drove from Minneapolis to Missouri in August 2014 to join the protests against the police killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson. He quickly became one of BLM's best-known voices, playing a key role in updating the rest of the country about what was happening on the ground, all while being teargassed and hounded by local law enforcement. But with the attention came criticism: Mckesson was dismissed as an unaccountable showboat by some fellow activists and cast as 'public enemy No. 1' by BLM's detractors in government, right-wing media, and the police."
  3. Kosoff, Maya (12 July 2016). "What Silicon Valley Doesn't Get About Race". Vanity Fair. More than 100 demonstrators were arrested on Saturday night, including DeRay Mckesson, the young civil-rights activist who has become the face of the Black Lives Matter movement. In a picture taken of his arrest in Baton Rouge, Mckesson is staring straight ahead at the camera, on one knee as police officers handcuff him. He's wearing a T-shirt that says '#StayWoke'—a shirt belonging to Twitter's internal #blackbirds diversity group. It's a poignant image that went viral overnight. In the morning, Salesforce C.E.O. Marc Benioff tweeted the image with the caption: 'Yes that is a Twitter Blackbirds logo. Amazing to see tech as a vehicle for social change. Respect.'
  4. Epps, Garrett (14 December 2019). "Don't Let the First Amendment Forget DeRay Mckesson". The Atlantic. On the night of July 9, Black Lives Matter activists, including Mckesson, took part in a protest outside the police headquarters and blocked the highway. [ ] Officer Doe[ ]brought a suit against Mckesson and the entire Black Lives Matter movement, arguing that 'Black Lives Matter leadership[ and ]DeRay Mckesson ratified all action taken during the Baton Rouge protest.'
  5. "Black Lives Matter activist Mckesson released from jail". Associated Press. 10 July 2016. Mckesson is one of the most recognizable faces to emerge from the Black Lives Matter movement — a former educator who built a national following after leaving his home and job in Minneapolis in August 2014 for Ferguson, Missouri, to document the rising anger over race relations following a white officer's fatal shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black man. [ ] When Brown was shot, Mckesson drove 500 miles (800 kilometers) to Ferguson. Being on the streets, he said, 'woke me up.'
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
None of these sources say anything about the phrase's general usage, let alone McKesson's arrest supercharging it. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
None of these sources say anything about the phrase's general usage, let alone McKesson's arrest 'supercharging' it.
OK, well, I hope no one thought I wanted WP so-informally to say that this iconic BLM protest image - Which happens to be of Mckesson; it could have been Ieshia Evans, if she'd worn the shirt billboarding the hashtag. - such as "turbocharged" the phrase's in-general renown, just the implicit or explicit observation that its currency increased upon its broadcast on the electronic media's ethers. In fact, I believe that the image deserves even its own article.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  1. - "When Twitter Got #woke: Black Lives Matter, DeRay McKesson, Twitter, and the Appropriation of the Aesthetics of Protest (Farida Vis, Simon Faulkner, Safiya Umoja Noble, and Hannah Guy)[sci-hub.se/10.1515/9789048544509-016] - "Abstract. This chapter takes as its focal point a press photograph of the arrest of DeRay McKesson, a prominent black figure associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement in the United States. In the photograph, McKesson is shown wearing a T-shirt, produced by the social media company Twitter, that bears the hashtag #StayWoke." [ ] "Also notable is the grey T-shirt McKesson is wearing, which was produced by the social media company Twitter and bears the hashtag #StayWoke and a Twitter Blackbird logo."
  2. reviewsmagazine[38] - "#StayWoke Because #BlackLivesMatter: From the Tweets to the Streets" - [ ] Picture Says a Thousand Words. As the[ BLM ]movement gained popularity, so did its representatives: mostly those who were prominent on social media and shared the most popular statuses and tweets that were consumed by the #BlackLivesMatter audience. One of such people is DeRay McKesson who often streamed live videos from the events. Farida Vis et al. take to analyse one precise photograph of McKesson which took the Internet by storm not only for McKesson being arrested on it, but also by wearing a T-shirt with the Twitter logo and the phrase '#STAYWOKE' directly connected with the #BlackLivesMatter movement, and thus linking the social network to the event. [ ] Following this event, the cropped version of the photo was not only shared online but also in traditional print media and on TV news."
  3. Black Lives Matter: From a Moment to a Movement (2018)# [39] - "To help activists connect with the movement, they[ Mckesson & Elzie ]created Stay Woke[ ]."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  4. vanityfair[40] - "More than 100 demonstrators were arrested on Saturday night, including DeRay Mckesson, the young civil-rights activist who has become the face of the Black Lives Matter movement. In a picture taken of his arrest in Baton Rouge, Mckesson is staring straight ahead at the camera, on one knee as police officers handcuff him. He's wearing a T-shirt that says '#StayWoke'[ .]"
  5. esquire- "Maybe you saw the video of his arrest two weeks ago down in Baton Rouge. That night in Louisiana, McKesson was wearing a gray and black #StayWoke shirt[. The hashtag was borne out of the black community, and Deray is a household name because he helped make Black Lives Matter a household phrase. When you look back at that photo from the night of his arrest in Baton Rouge, you see McKesson on his knees. He's sweating. A black backpack tugs on his shoulders. His shirt is pulled back against his stomach, the neckline starting to strain. Two cops grasp his upper body. He stares directly into the camera lens."

    BLM activist Mckesson apparently got the Twitter company-produced shirt from Jack Dorsey the month before (June).[41])--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  1. londontimes[42] - "Black Lives Matter didn't invent 'woke', but the organisation reinvigorated it. The term had been associated with consciousness towards racial oppression since the mid-20th century. The first published evidence of it is a 1962 entry in an African-American slang dictionary with the definition 'well informed, up-to-date'. In Garvey Lives!, a 1972 play by Barry Beckham, a character promises that, inspired by the work of the activist Marcus Garvey, he’ll 'stay woke'. In 2008 the singer Erykah Badu incorporated it into the lyrics of her song Master Teacher and in 2012 tweeted 'woke' in support not of black consciousness, but of feminist consciousness, with reference to the punk group Pussy Riot, who at the time were on trial in Russia. 'Stay woke. Watch closely. #FreePussyRiot,' Badu posted. In July 2016 the Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson was arrested during the Baton Rouge protest while wearing a T-shirt that read: 'Stay Woke.'"
  2. pitchfork[43] - "[ ]#BlackLivesMatter was started by three black women in 2013, the movement was galvanized after Michael Brown’s murder in Ferguson, Missouri a year later, in large part around activist DeRay McKesson[ ]"
  3. theundefeated[44] - "'I remember seeing it all on Twitter and all these black people talking about what had happened,' said civil rights activist DeRay Mckesson. He was so moved that he drove from Minneapolis to Ferguson. Meeting there with other activists, Mckesson decided that the best use of his skills would be to chronicle what was happening on the streets, and he used Twitter to achieve that goal. [ ] 'There are people who are gifted in leading action and lead the action, but I could streamline the flow of information, and used Twitter to do that. I tried to tweet in a way that was clear, concise. Reporters had to follow me to know what they were going to get next.'"
  4. bustle[45] - "There's More To 'Woke' Than You Think" - "Following its use in the Black Lives Matter movement, 'instead of just being a word that signaled awareness of injustice or racial tension, it became a word of action. Activists were woke and called on others to stay woke.' To use 'woke' accurately in a sentence, you'd be talking about someone who thinks for themselves, who sees the ways in which racism, sexism and classism affect your daily life. #StayWoke often accompanies social media posts about police brutality, systematic racism and the industrial prison complex. {{tq|Someone who understands how to be woke thinks critically, with intersectionality at the heart of their work."
  5. wearyourvoicemag[46] - "The term gained more popularity amongst non-Black people following the increased visibility of police brutality against Black, Indigenous and people of color, and after the Ferguson protests when DeRay McKesson–who often included a 'stay woke' within his tweets–launched a platform literally called Stay Woke."
  6. nytimes[47] - "Since Aug. 9, 2014,[ ]Mckesson and a core group of other activists have built the most formidable American protest movement of the 21st century to date. Their innovation has been to marry the strengths of social media — the swift, morally blunt consensus that can be created by hashtags; the personal connection that a charismatic online persona can make with followers; the broad networks that allow for the easy distribution of documentary photos and videos — with an effort to quickly mobilize protests in each new city where a police shooting occurs."
  7. Center for Media & Social Impact (Freelon & McIlwain & Clark; 2016)[48] [49] - "Beyond the Hashtags: #Ferguson, #Blacklivesmatter, And the Online Struggle for Offline Justice." - "[ ]We close this section with a brief account of the rise to national prominence of activist DeRay Mckesson[ ]. In P3 he gained attention by livetweeting the Ferguson protests[ ]. McKesson first established himself as a trusted source of protest information, which in turn allowed him to become the movement’s best-known activist. It is impossible to say for certain exactly why McKesson, rather than someone else, achieved the prominence he did. But several qualities distinguished his tweets from others. First, regardless of the amount of media coverage, he consistently participated in and document-ed anti-brutality protests. This level of commitment likely established trust and respect between him and his audience. Second, his tweets linked individual incidents to systemic in-justices in policing and to a broader movement dedicated to ending those injustices. Third, as he moved from retweeting others to reporting from protests to inspirational declarations that 'the movement lives,' McKesson publicly documented his own transformation from concerned onlooker to committed activist[ ]."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Since these quotes have nothing to do with improving this article, as stated above, I'm closing this thread. Consider starting a draft article for any notable topics. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Material concerning prominent BLM activist Mckesson's iconic photo of being arrested in the #StayWoke hashtag t-shirt was in the article for over a year before its extremely recent deletion (diff), thus, How can the propriety of its deletion be considered any kind of foregone conclusion? According to my understanding, for example, under Per wp:BRD, the deletion of longstanding material is wp:Bold; yet, I politely did not resort to a simple wp:Revert bringing the matter back to the status quo, in of its eventual settlement within a talkpage discussion dedicated to it. I believe it obvious this material belongs in coverage given the #StayWoke hashtag in our article, an effort to forego the matter's discussion here seems to me precipitate at its least. The opposing editor's response to my courtesy being this attempt to preemptively close the discussion seems improper (certainly: unusual!). --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Dejuana Thompson & WokeVote-dot-us

This longstanding content was just removed from the article.

while the following year, Dejuana Thompson of Birmingham, Alabama established Woke Vote, an organization devoted to registering millennials.Duster, Chandelis R.; Tuakli, Foluké (December 14, 2017). "Black women stepped up for Doug Jones. Here's what motivated them". NBC News. Botel, Megan (18 August 2020). "'Crucial voices': the US women leading the fight against voter suppression". The Guardian. "Get Woke". Woke Vote.

According to my understanding of wp:BRD, the deletion of longstanding material, such as this is, is a wp:Bold component of BRD, which I've wp:Reverted (diff). In order to re-remove this material, talkpage consensus must be reached. Thus far, only two parties (its remover and myself its reinstater) have proffered !votes and we two await additional input (incidentally helping us avoid anything approaching an wp:Editwar).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

We should remove it. It helps slightly as an example of woke’s connections to millennials, but it’s not a particularly illustrative or due example. If such a better illustration/example exists, I might support it, but the connection to millennials is easy to understand without one. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
As I said earlier, It's another trivial use of the term "woke". We need sources that are specifically about the term. There's nothing in WP:BRD about how long something has been in the article. However, WP:V states that the onus to achieve consensus is on those seeking to include disputed material. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woke/Archive_5&oldid=1052072743"