Talk:Cancel culture/Archive 4

WP:SENSATION
The major problem with this article, as I see it, is that by the nature of the subject it is hard to avoid WP:SENSATION, since we are dealing with a term that has been fully appropriated into a buzzword for driving outrage clicks on the internet. Past discussions on this talk page have touched on this (e.g. here and here) but no lasting resolution has been forthcoming.

All that said, I am dubious that most of the recent additions made by are of lasting enough interest to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia, per e.g. WP:10YEARTEST. Some, such as this edit appear to be clear instances of WP:SYNTH as well. This page must not be allowed to become a laundry list of grievances. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Generalrelative (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that this can be an issue, though at the same time a well-curated and relatively short set of examples could be helpful. I would keep just ones that level-headed sources on cancel culture repeatedly mention as examples of the phenomenon. I haven't looked closely at the additions to see what they might be. Crossroads -talk- 00:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree in principle that a well-curated set of examples could be helpful, but I also don't disagree with FormalDude's decision to TNT the extant section . Examples, if they are re-added, should be chosen and discussed carefully. Generalrelative (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I will no longer made any additions that do not specificlaly refer to the phrase "cancel culture."

I 100% disagree with this recent revert. I support putting all of that reliably sourced material back into the article. How can readers understand the concept of "cancel culture" if the article does not cite specific examples?

The editor who deleted that content cited Coatrack articles as their only comment.

Coatrack articles states:

"A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. Typically, the article has been edited to make a point about something else. The nominal subject is functioning as an overloaded coat-rack, obscured by too many "coats" – additional topics that were grouped together to make it appear as if they were all examples of the same thing. A similar effect can result when an article's original author writes too much about background and loses sight of the title. Either way, the existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant, undue or biased material there."

I disagree that the deleted content meets the definition of "coatrack." Every single one of those examples includes the phrase "cancel culture" in its source. An article about "cancel culture" needs to include specific examples of what "cancul culture" is. Would it be considered "coatracking" for the article on Renaissance art to cite specific examples of Renaissance art? Would it be considered "coatracking" for the article on Dinosaurs to cite specific examples of dinosaurs? Would it be considered "coatracking" for the article on Serial killers to cite specific examples of serial killers? No, no, and no. Likewise, it should not be considered "coatracking" for the article on "cancel culture" to cite specific examples of cancel culture.

Pretty much every wikipedia article about any topic includes specific examples of that topic. Why should this be the only article in all of wikipedia that does not include examples of its topic?

Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The revert in question removed the entire section called "Examples of cancel culture as reported in the news."

That section is necessary for readers to understand what cancel culture it.

Here is the content in question. I support putting all of it back into the article.


 * Section title: Examples of cancel culture as reported in the news.


 * In 2020, Civis Analytics fired David Shor, a data analyst, after he tweeted, "Post-MLK-assasination race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests *increase* Dem vote, mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage." Shor's tweet also included a link to a paper by Princeton professor Omar Wasow, which hypothesized that peaceful protests were more effective than violent ones. New York magazine wrote, "At least some employees and clients on Civis Analytics complained that Shor’s tweet threatened their safety." New York magazine also wrote that Shor's firing had caused him to "become a byword for the excesses of so-called cancel culture." PBS mentioned Shor's firing in an article called, "‘Cancel culture’ debate bubbles up in politics and beyond" Politico mentioned Shor's firing in an article called, "How Everything Became ‘Cancel Culture’" In an opinion column for the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg wrote, "One of the more egregious recent examples of left-wing illiberalism is the firing of David Shor."


 * In 2020, the University of Tennessee successfully pressured a newly admitted student to not attend the college, after someone sent the college a video of a private Snapchat conversation which had taken place three years earlier, where the student had said to her friends, “I can drive [racial slur].” The New York Times referred to the university's action as "cancellation," with the word "cancellation" including a link to an older New York Times article called, "Tales From the Teenage Cancel Culture."


 * In February 2021, Disney fired actress Gina Carano from her role on The Mandalorian after she tweeted, "Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors.... even by children" and "Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?"    She was dropped by her agent and Hasbro removed her Star Wars action figure from the shelves. The phrase "cancel culture" was cited in reports of her firing.


 * In March 2021, Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced that it would stop publishing six books by Dr. Seuss, which it said included “hurtful” portrayals of cultural stereotypes. Dr. Seuss Enterprises told Associated Press, "These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong." Citing examples, Associated Press wrote, "In And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, an Asian person is portrayed wearing a conical hat, holding chopsticks, and eating from a bowl. If I Ran the Zoo includes a drawing of two bare-footed African men wearing what appear to be grass skirts with their hair tied above their heads." The same Associated Press article also stated, "The move to cease publication of the books drew immediate reaction on social media from those who called it another example of 'cancel culture.'"

I support putting all of that content back into the article.

How can we expect readers to understand what "cancel culture" is if the article does not cite specific examples?

Should the articles on Renaissance art, Dinosaurs, and Serial killers also have all of their examples removed too? Of course not. This article should be no different.

Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Would you agree that Spinoza being expelled from the Jewish community of Amsterdam in 1656 was an example of "cancel culture"? Because the BBC said so. If not, we will need to come up with some criteria to discern which are more frivolous uses of the term and which are less so. Or not. In cases like this, where the examples are almost entirely comprised of WP:SENSATION, I am happy to have a brief article that focuses on discussing its subject in general terms and quotes people talking about the purported phenomenon in general. If there is a policy or guideline countermanding such an approach I will of course change my position but I am not at present aware of one. Generalrelative (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I support including that in the article, as the BBC is a very reliable source. Perhaps the section of examples could have one section titled, "Modern day examples," and a second section titled "Historial examples." Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that sums up our difference of opinion then. Generalrelative (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Even if we don't include that one example, I still think we should include several of the most notable examples, such as the four that I cited above. Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You said, "we will need to come up with some criteria to discern which are more frivolous uses of the term and which are less so."


 * Each of the four examples that I cited above has received extensive coverage, commentary, etc., from a large number of sources. So, for example, even though I only linked to that one New York Time article about the student whose college acceptance was revoked, a huge number of other sources have commented on that specific New York Times article. In fact, each and every one of the four examples that I cited above has receive widespread coverage in a huge number of sources. I added those four examples because they were some of the most notable and highly covered ones that I could find. Of course we can't include every single example, as wikipedia articles should not be more than a few hundred thousand bytes in length. But we should at least include several of the most notable examples. And I think the four that I cited are among the most notable examples.


 * Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support the inclusion of any examples that aren't from a reputable peer-reviewed journal. –– FormalDude  talk  15:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please explain why the Washington Post, Associated Press, New York Times, etc., are not sufficient. Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is only interested in academic analysis of the topic, not frivolous news reports that come and go like the wind. –– FormalDude  talk  15:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please cite a wikipedia policy which says that the Washington Post, Associated Press, New York Times, etc., are not reliable sources for citing in wikipedia articles. Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BESTSOURCE. Clearly the most respected and authoritative sources on this are academics, not journalists. –– FormalDude  talk  16:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You said, "Clearly the most respected and authoritative sources on this are academics, not journalists."
 * Please cite a wikipedia policy that verifies your statement.
 * Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The section of WP:NPOV which FormalDude linked to suggests as further reading Academic bias. While essays are not policy, it's clear from the inclusion of this particular essay in that core policy that the community sees it as a straightforward interpretation of WP:BESTSOURCE. And that essay makes exactly the same point as FormalDude. Scholars and scientists decide what is "true" for Wikipedia. Generalrelative (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you please quote something from one of those policies which says that academic sources are better than the New York Times and the Washington Post?
 * Also, even without the content that I added, the current version of the article contains multiple citations to each of those two newspapers. Why haven't the people who removed my content removed those things?
 * In fact, pretty much any wikipedia article of substantial length includes citations to both of those newspapers.
 * I maintain that the content that I added from those sources (and the other sources) is both notable and reliably sourced, and should be put back in the article.
 * The articles Renaissance art, Dinosaurs, and Serial killers all include examples of those things. So why shouldn't this article also include examples of its subject?
 * Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was going to respond but see that Aquillion has done so quite deftly below. Generalrelative (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm new at editing this article. This is my first edit to this article, which I made two days ago. My edit is regarding the content on Gina Carano. When I made that edit, I commented:

"I am removing this quote because it is not cited in the source. I am replacing it with her actual quote as reported by Associated Press. Please see Biographies of living persons."

So before I came along, no one here, apparently, seemed to have a problem with a fake, imaginary, non-existent, unsourced, and defamatory quote being included in the article.

It was only when I came by, and replaced that fake quote, with the actual, real quote, as cited by an extremely reliable source, that anyone here had a problem with mentioning Gina Carano in the article, and all mention of her was removed from the article.

Why is that?

Why was the fake, unsourced, and defamatory quote allowed to remain in the article for so long, while the real, reliably sourced quote, was removed almost as soon as I added it?

Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * My guess is that your edits simply called attention to the extent of the problem. At least that's what happened in my case. Most of us have many articles on our watchlists and are juggling numerous on-Wiki priorities. Don't forget to assume good faith in your comments unless you can provide slam-dunk evidence to the contrary. Generalrelative (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The articles Renaissance art, Dinosaurs, and Serial killers all include examples of those things. So why shouldn't this article also include examples of its subject? Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no serious debate over what qualifies as (or the nature, reality, or implications of) Renaissance art, dinosaurs, or serial killers. There is a serious debate over all those aspects of cancel culture, which means that a list of examples can easily devolve into WP:OR as people attempt to "prove" various things about the topic by including stuff that fits a particular example or add things to the article in an effort to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by calling attention to them. On moral panic (a term that, while it has a much more clearly established and well-defined academic meaning, is similarly popular with axe-grindy culture-war types and therefore attracted similar editors determined to "expose" some moral panic they disagreed with after reading one piece using the term or the like) this was solved by setting a clear and reasonably high bar for inclusion - specifically, references in academic papers that connect the topic to the academic concept by referencing Stanley Cohen's definition (or some similar academic who defines it.) That avoids issues where people who are deeply invested in the culture wars rush here to drop the latest opinion piece or sensationalist scandal they saw in the paper into the article, while keeping us from going too far in the other direction by setting a relatively unambiguous guideline. Looking at eg. the serial killers discussed in serial killers, it seems similar - the ones there are those that have had serious and in-depth academic stuff written about them - papers and scholarly works that don't just use the term in passing but directly define it and treat them as a fundamental way of understanding the article's topic. It's easy to see how using the standard you're suggesting here (citing editorials, opinion-pieces, and contemporary news stories that largely cover things as social controversies) could lead to a lopsided and sensationalistic portrayal of serial killers as well. --Aquillion (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response.
 * I agree with you that there is no significant controversy over the definitions of Renaissance art, Dinosaurs, and Serial killers, which does make those things different from Cancel culture, whose definition is substantially controversial.
 * That's why I made sure to cite claims from reliable sources that those four things are examples of cancel culture. Granted, my sources were the Washington Post, the New York Times, Associated Press, and other news sources, and not academic papers. But I was under the impression that those news sources were considered reliable as far was wikipedia is concerned. In fact, even without those four things, the article still includes multiple citations to the Washington Post and multiple citations to the New York Times. I don't think academic papers are necessarily worse, or better, than those news sources.
 * Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have made a request at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard to hear the opinions of other people regarding this discussion. Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

In this new edit, the info about the Dixie Chicks, John Cleese, Mike Lindell, and Josh Hawley has been removed. That's too bad. I support putting it back in.

But I won't make any edits that go against consensus. For reasons that my brain simply does not understand, the consensus is to not include any actual examples of cancel culture as reported by reliable news sources, in an article about cancel culture. I accept the fact that this is the consensus. I do not agree with it. I do not understand it. But I accept the fact that that is the consensus, and I will not make any edits that go against consensus. I think it's very sad and very disappointing that the consensus is against having any actual examples of cancel culture as reported by reliable news sources, in an article about cancel culture.

Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Having come from the NPOV noticeboard, I personally don't see what the issue is with including some particularly notable examples; examples of what the topic discusses certainly aids in the understanding of readers.
 * I also don't see what the issue is with the sources that were used in the article. The notion that for discussing the topic of cancel culture "as reported in the news", the Associated Press, New York Times etc. are unreliable and only peer reviewed academic papers are reliable is absurd and I have absolutely no idea where FormalDude (and to a lesser extent Generalrelative) is coming from. That assertion does not seem to be founded upon anything, and a link to a policy which effectively says "use the most reliable sources you have" does not seem to substantiate that point of view either. Endwise (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's extremely commonplace to require high quality academic sources for topics that are contentious. There are many news articles that call certain things cancel culture, probably hundreds, are we going to list them all in an examples section of this article? Of course not. Mulva Gripple Dolores is suggesting we pick the most important ones, but hasn't provided any explanation for why certain examples from certain newspapers are more notable or relevant than any others. That's because they aren't, and picking a few examples out of news articles is bound to introduce bias.
 * By requiring that examples be from peer-reviewed journals, we know that they are going to be notable, relevant examples, because they are supported by evidence, which can be detailed in the article as well. An academic paper or study is much more valuable to readers than a collection of newspaper clippings and is almost always given more weight by encyclopedias.
 * And there does exist many examples in peer-reviewed journals, although probably not along the lines of people like Mike Lindell and Josh Hawley. –– F ormal D ude  talk  06:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming here from the noticeboard and offering your thoughts on this. Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between news media sources that are a dispassionate overview of "cancel culture" as a topic from major outlets of record, and ones that primarily report on this or that incident and remark that someone called it cancel culture, or opinionated sources. Incidents that are repeatedly mentioned in articles of the first sort would be good candidates for inclusion. Crossroads -talk- 05:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know if we necessarily need academic sources, but there does need to be a high bar for WP:DUE and I generally agree with Generalrelative and Aquillion. To say something has been canceled has passed from its original meaning, through politics and pop culture, and emerged as something just as often used as a partisan signal or morning talk show simulacrum as it is cultural criticism. Nearly everything that has stopped production, went off the air, got fired, or was criticized in the past couple years has some sources saying it was "canceled". Like some other terms that have lost some meaning to both pop culture and politics, it's a tough call to evaluate due weight. The sources Mulva provided for Gina Carano are pretty telling. It's a refbomb, and fully four out of five are unreliable sources. The fifth is explicitly critical of the calling it "cancel culture"! - Carano’s departure from The Mandalorian isn’t just a shoddy choice of case study for itchy-trigger-finger “cancellation”, it’s proof that cancel culture, as they construe it, simply doesn’t exist. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a big different between "cancel" and "cancel culture." I was specifically citing articles that used the phrase "cancel culture."
 * You said, "Carano’s departure from The Mandalorian isn’t just a shoddy choice of case study for itchy-trigger-finger “cancellation”, it’s proof that cancel culture, as they construe it, simply doesn’t exist."
 * She got fired from her job because her employer didn't like some opinions that she had posted on her Twitter account. Her firing had nothing to do with her job performance. Pretty much everyone who has commented on her job performance has agreed that she did an excellent job as her character in the show. How does this prove that "cancel culture, as they construe it, simply doesn’t exist"?
 * And what about Shor? He was fired for tweeting a link to an academic study. I consider this to be the single most notable example of cancel culture, and Shor's firing has been widely criticized by people on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
 * After the college rescinded the admission of that student when they saw the video from three years earlier of her using a racial slur to address her own friends in a private conservation, the New York Times article actually praised the person who sent the video to the school.
 * And the Dr. Seuss books? The descriptions of the artwork that I quoted are the same as what exists in real life photographs. Many Chinese people in the real world really did wear conical hats. And many native people in the real world really did wear grass skirts. Those drawings are not racist. Instead, they are accurate depictions of the real world.
 * So how can anyone say that cancel culture is not real?
 * Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please make yourself aware of our talk page guidelines. Per WP:TALKNO: Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it. Generalrelative (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the claim that "cancel culture, as they construe it, simply doesn’t exist."
 * The whole reason that I want to include actual examples in this article is to show that it does exist, and how it actually is in the real world.
 * The article would be much better if it included those examples.
 * Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a direct quote from the source you provided. Generalrelative (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out.
 * The full sentence from the source is, "Carano’s departure from The Mandalorian isn’t just a shoddy choice of case study for itchy-trigger-finger 'cancellation', it’s proof that cancel culture, as they construe it, simply doesn’t exist."
 * The article then tries to prove that point by pointing out previous controversial tweets that she had made, for which she was not fired.
 * I think citing this argument against the existence of cancel culture would be a worthy addition to this article.
 * Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that cancel culture is "a form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person", it should be expected that news RSes will be appropriate. This is not an issue that will be entirely and adequately addressed by academia; indeed the "In popular culture" section is using pop culture sources, which is the right way to do it.  Perhaps the issue is that this doesn't allow such sections to be well bounded, they tend to turn into lists and that's not great.  Maybe there's a solution to that but I'm not experienced enough to say.  SmolBrane (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on the definition of consensus
There seems to be an assumption in this discussion that consensus is about the numbers, i.e., if more people support including certain content, or not including certain content, then that's how it goes.

But that is not what wikipedia policy says.

Consensus clearly states: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

In this specific discussion, the argument for inclusion is supported by Neutral point of view and Reliable sources.

By comparison, those who claim that only academic sources can be used have not cited any wikipedia policy to back up their claims.

If we look at the arguments based on wikipedia policy, instead of on the number of people who support or oppose including the content, the consensus is for including the content.

Orb452672 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your user talk page since this is really just a –– very understandable –– rookie mistake based on a superficial reading of policy. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to use the article talk page to explain further, so please feel free to engage there. Generalrelative (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I read your response. Thank you for your comments, advice, and kind words.
 * I disagree with your claim that these things are not appropriate discussion topics for an article talk page. The whole point of an article talk page is to talk about how to improve articles, and about how wikipedia policies affect the changes that we make to articles. I see nothing in wikipedia policy that says only academic journals can be cited as sources. Wikipedia policy is very welcoming, and encouraging, for users to improve articles by adding content that is verified by reliable sources. Reliable sources can be news articles, or academic papers. There is nothing in any wikipedia policy that prevents reliable news articles from being cited as sources. The news articles cited above are reliable, and well within wikipedia's policy of reliable sources.
 * If there is indeed a wikipedia policy that prevents reliable news articles from being used as sources, please post a link to it.
 * Orb452672 (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you don't seem willing to drop the matter here, I'll engage one more time. Broadly speaking, this discussion is about WP:SENSATION, which is a notability guideline. Implicit in your argument seems to be the assumption that anything which appears in reliable sources is WP:DUE for inclusion, which is not the case. Generally speaking, we apply a WP:10YEARTEST to determine what is of encyclopedic value. That is leaving aside the question of which sources are really WP:RS for these claims, and a number of those which have been argued for above are clearly not, which also appears to be contrary to what you're claiming here. So there is no question that we need to exercise editorial discretion here; the only real question is where the line should be drawn. And as of yet there is no consensus for including any of the examples that have so far been suggested. Generalrelative (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is no brand new editor; it's a sockpuppet of Goo447, who almost definitely has an older master account. Graham 87 15:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Review
Although this article provides a lot of context into how cancel culture relates to the Black Lives Matter movement, and other racial equality movements around the country, it is fairly disorganized in terms of its flow of information between topics. The article doesn’t focus on any particular movement or social trend that relates to the topic for very long, such as starting the article with mentioning cancel culture among the MeToo movement, but then abruptly shifting to talking about its connection to the Black Lives Matter movement, and then again to yet another social movement. This problem is most evident in the “Reaction” section, where instead of beginning with a discussion of how the general public feels about cancel culture, and them transitioning to leading social justice organizations and political figures and academics, like most social commentary articles do, this one simply lists a few quotes from random people who, most of whom are not directly connected with cancel culture or have much specific knowledge of it. This article’s “C” rating is accurate, because it is currently a hodgepodge or mostly relevant facts, but poor sentence and paragraph structure. CJS77 (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Contemporary Black Popular Culture
— Assignment last updated by Uzo.Ilo (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2022
Aren’t item’s B and C under the Explanatory notes section a bit too opinion based to be included? Though I don’t doubt the accuracy of the factual information included in both those notes, the linguistic context of both of them clearly favors one perspective on the topic and as such it seemed more like an opinion and less of a cold hard fact. I get that it’s a somewhat nit-picky of a request for an edit, sorry if I’ve wasted anyone’s time with this. Keep up the good work and Happy Holidays! 2601:547:1001:9590:919E:ACB1:C35F:D8A7 (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2023
Dimitri De Rada (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC) at the end of the part about the academic analisys I want add:

Relationship with the right to information

It has been argued by the legal doctrine (Dimitri De Rada) that the culture of cancellation presents itself as detrimental to the right to information and the right to the truth: in fact the right to information, a passive reflection of freedom of manifestation of one's thought, risks being limited where a cancellation movement leads to the elimination or boycott of opinions, characters or historical facts that are not in line with the ideas and sensibilities of the majority or in any case of an influential group. It must instead be complete, integral and also take into account the most "inconvenient" elements and minority opinions (even if the concept of cancel culture is not necessarily linked to an idea of ​​repression of a "minority") The individual must therefore have the possibility of knowing even the most unpleasant historical facts, as well as dissonant opinions, without someone else being able to decide a priori for he. In a context in which, on the other hand, opinions were fully homogenized with those of the majority or of a dominant group, or facts and historical elements deemed unpleasant were cancelled, the consequence would be a clear damage or, at least, an impoverishment of the democratic debate and of the social progress that derives from this. Dimitri De Rada, Cancel Culture e diritto all’accesso all’informazione, Nomos, 2-2121. https://www.nomos-leattualitaneldiritto.it/nomos/dimitri-de-rada-cancel-culture-e-diritto-allaccesso-allinformazione/

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Typo: ost[r]acized
There's a missing r in ostacized (should be ostracized).

78.43.40.24 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Done! Thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Not distinct.
Canceling imus on the radio because he said the N word and taking down the Statue of Christoper Columbus could be two different issues in society and is not correctly defined. 2603:7000:B901:8500:B53E:42CC:4EF6:1F9A (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"also known as call-out culture" removed
I have removed the line that cancel culture is "also known as call-out culture" from the lead sentence. That these terms are synonymous lacks sourcing, and there are sources, e.g. this Vox article that distinguish between the two. My understanding is that these terms are not the same. "Call-out culture" is a more positive term, indicating a willingness to bring wrongdoing and misconduct into public light and challenging beliefs and utterances that may be e.g. racist. "Cancel culture" goes beyond that since it calls for the person who made such utterances to be boycotted or ostracized, even up to the point of demanding them be fired from their place of work. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Some sources distinguish between the two (that Vox article is very good). Others equate them, including at least one that is already cited in the article: . Here are a few more: . The Atalantic refers to the "much-criticized set of social-media practices often referred to as “callout culture” and its close sibling, “cancel culture,” which is I think a well balanced approach: . Since a) this removal appears to have been based on an error (status quo does not lack sourcing), and b) more content would need to be removed to scrub the "call-out culture" content from this article, I suggest re-adding the clause removed from the lead sentence. Removing that one clause frankly just makes the article awkward to read. We can then have a discussion about possibly splitting into two articles, mindful of the danger of WP:POVFORK. Generalrelative (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources! Apparently different sources use the term in different ways. I am not that concerned about mention of "call-out culture" not being present since that term is introduced already in the second paragraph: "The term "call-out culture" is generally understood to be a more positive framing of the same concept.", although that might need some rewording to reflect that some sources regard the terms as equal. If the clause I removed is returned to the lead sentence the first paragraph would say that the terms are the same thing, while the second paragraph says they are somewhat different. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If re-added to the first sentence it seems it should be in the form of 'sometimes known as' or the like, although I think the explanation in the second paragraph is sufficient. The term is much less common it seems anyway. Crossroads -talk- 19:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Confusion of several different phenomena?
I think that this article conflates at least two distinct phenomena which already have separate names. Although "call-out culture" has been removed from the opening sentence - the resulting definition is good - the term is re-introduced later as an form of the same phenomenon.

I suggest that there should be disambiguation into separate articles.

In addition I question whether the sections "Academic Analysis" and "Reactions" serve a valid purpose within Wikipedia since these consist of opinions rather than established facts or the results of academic research.

1. I suggest that "call-out culture" consists of publicising hypocrisy or hidden crimes by public figures which have a fairly good base of evidence. The facts are not generally disputed, and the people behind it are not necessarily related to the target.

2. The "me too movement" does the same except that the facts are disputed and the people behind it allege that some behaviour of the target has affected them personally and adversely. 3. In both of the above the targets are public figures and the main purpose is to make the allegation known as broadly as possible. In contrast I suggest that "cancel culture" is a retaliation against the expression of opinions which others find offensive and results in ostracism from a community because the perpetrator's continuing association with the community will "bring the community into disrepute."

BG2023 (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

inconsistent argument from source
" Still others question whether cancel culture is an actual phenomenon, arguing that similar forms of boycotting have long existed."

This comes from a source: https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2020/07/cancel-culture-does-not-exist

I do not have the full source. However, to me it should be removed or rephrased. It is simply illogical. The fact that something similar has existed before is not an argument for that something does not exist. There is a possibility that the original article's argument is misrepresented, hence I did not remove it. First I thought that it should have said "question whether cancel culture is a recent phenomenon..." but the cited article does indeed say "cancel culture does not exist".

Please protest - or I will cancel the argument ;. Postdeborinite (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Partial revert
I've partially reverted the recent edit by. My rationale is that "cancel culture" is not a practice but rather a phrase used to describe a culture within which a certain practice is supposedly prevalent. We need to be careful not to unduly reify the term. Happy to discuss here if necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For posterity, here's the original wording and my rewrite:
 * Cancel culture, also known as call-out culture, is a phrase contemporary to the late 2010s and early 2020s used to refer to a culture in which those who are deemed to have acted or spoken in an unacceptable manner are ostracized, boycotted or shunned.
 * Cancel culture, also known as call-out culture, is the practice of ostracizing, boycotting or shunning people deemed to have acted or spoken in an unacceptable manner.
 * I have two issues with the original: the first, more substantial, is WP:REFERS – this article is about the topic of cancel culture rather than just the phrase "cancel culture". Now, I grant that the term is loaded, used mostly by the critics, so it's not so straightforward. The second is that the sentence is convoluted: it wastes some twenty words before even getting to the crux of the matter. I'd prefer having a straight, simple English definition first, and put all the disclaimers and clarifications later. For the start, I'd replace all that contemporary to the late 2010s and early 2020s with simple "modern". However, my main issue is with the definition: I would get rid of "is a phrase" or "is a term", and use "is an X" instead (maybe my term "practice" was not the best fitting either, but I felt it was an improvement). No such user (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the present sentence is probably far from perfect. The problem is that the more straightforward sentence is not accurate, since "cancel culture" is not a practice. Dancing is a practice. Even "cancelling" can be said to be a practice, provided we are clear on what that means. I'd be willing to work on a more concise opening, but do not agree that the disclaimers and clarifications should be elided. They are, as I see it, a big part of the informational value of the article, and entirely in line with the way reliable sources commonly describe the topic.
 * Wrt "modern", I would suggest that is far too vague (for historians "modern" can refer to anything post 1453). But I'd be happy to either move the clause to a following sentence in the lead paragraph –– e.g. "The terms are contemporary to the late 2010s and early 2020s." –– or simply replace with the word "contemporary".
 * Wrt WP:REFERS, compare "cancel culture" to the example given in the first paragraphs of that guideline: Computer architecture. There the concern is that using "refers to" is not true. But here the opposite is the case, since the thing we're talking about is a label.
 * But again, happy to keep working on this. I believe that this is an important article for us to get right, and collaboration is certainly the best way to accomplish that. Generalrelative (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree it is kind of sensitive issue. Let's take an overview how other sources are doing it. Here's the first dozen Google hits for "cancel culture definition", bolds mine:
 * Merriam-Webster: The meaning of CANCEL CULTURE is the practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure; ...
 * Dictionary.com Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or ...
 * Cambridge University Press & Assessment a way of behaving in a society or group, especially on social media, in which it is common to completely reject and stop supporting someone because they ...
 * Vox “Canceling is a way to acknowledge that you don't have to have the power to change structural inequality,” Charity Hudley said. “You don't even ...
 * Pew Research Center: Cancel culture is a movement to remove celebrity status or esteem from a person, place, or thing based on offensive behavior or transgression.”.
 * Collins Dictionary: Cancel culture is a culture, especially on social media, in which people stop supporting a person because they are encouraged to do so by someone that ...
 * Oxford Learner's Dictionaries Cancel culture punishes people who break the rules by saying the wrong thing. · The power of social media's cancel culture can end a career within minutes. · The ...
 * Urban Dictionary A term used to describe a process in which people and or businesses try to shun people from polite society usually by going after someone's ability to make a ...
 * First Monday: Cancel culture is a phenomenon where individuals transgressing norms are called out and ostracised on social media and other venues by members of the public ...
 * Freedom Forum: Cancel culture, as defined by Dictionary.com, is “the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies ...
 * The New York Times: The public shaming of those deemed moral transgressors has been around for ages. As practiced today, though, is the custom a radical form of ...
 * insider.com: Cancel culture, or the idea that people too often pile onto others for bad behavior, emerged only in the past few years but has become a ...
 * Forbes: A highly punitive approach to disagreement or perceived transgressions, based on strict fidelity to ideology (usually progressive) that ...
 * Broadly, most sources have no qualms of wrapping it in "is a term for" (and those tend to be dictionaries), and describe it as a thing – a tendency, movement, culture, phenomenon, practice or approach. I don't think we should sugarcoat it too much either. Of the above, I think I most like First Monday's wording a phenomenon, as well as Forbes's approach. Concerning the "modern" issue, I'd either skip the reference altogether in lead sentence, or perhaps use "recent", MOS:RECENT notwithstanding – the phenomenon is here to stay for a while, and if it goes away someone will update the article. No such user (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Id like to go one further than whats mentioned here, and suggest i feel there is an issue with how we are defining the origins of the term - likely due to its nature as a phrase rather than a practice. I feel it misses out a lot of context and seems to somewhat suggest that it just one day existed, without any buildup. I agree "cancel culture" is a phrase, however feel the practice of cancelling opposing views should be more heavily explored to give context of how the phrase came to be given the emerging prevalence of social networks. Giving context of practices which used to happen by pressure groups, and how this evolved over time with the decentralisation of reported opinion may make the article somewhat better.


 * As an example for what i mean, and ill admit this is a very British perspective, Mary Whitehouse is a well known 70s/80s conservative that lead a pressure group which was close to the Conservative government of the day. They campaigned on many issues, such as removing violence from the Daleks in Doctor Who and having the BBC apologise and agree to editorial controls. One of the more famous ones is where they managed to get Monty Python's Life of Brian removed from multiple cinemas around the country based on false accusations. Many of the councils never watched the film, but removed the screenings based on the advocacy of this particular pressure group. Im sure American authors can refer to former confederate charities that campaigned to have books reflecting the true purpose of the wars destroyed post defeat in a similar (and more historical) light.


 * Reason i raise this example is in modern times, this would likely also be known as "cancel culture". Its just back in the 70s, you couldnt go on Twitter to make these kind of movements. There is a practice of sorts there which should be referred to in the origins, then expanding to how the culture as a phrase is effectively the democratisation of the practice through viral campaigns. The example i provide is also quite nice as it shows both the left and right of the political spectrum take part in "cancel culture" - which the current article doesnt really address. It feels very off to me to start off the origins by going straight into "MeToo" when really this was just when it became mainstream per say, rather than when it actually originated as something that people done. I think theres scope to cover both avenues, and not doing so leaves the article feeling somewhat bias to me. Garfie489 (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for compiling all those sources. You're clearly right that a lot of RS describe it as a "practice". That's frustrating to me personally, but I'm well aware that my personal opinions aren't relevant here. I like very much your compromise wording of "phenomenon" and would be happy to go with that.
 * You raise some interesting points, but see our policy against original research. If the sources we're using don't discuss these things explicitly in terms of "cancel culture" then neither can we. That said, a while back I heard a BBC radio story about Spinoza in which they described his expulsion from the Jewish community of Amsterdam in 1656 as an example of "cancel culture", so clearly there is at least marginal support for reading this term backward into history. Whether that reading should be considered due for inclusion is another question however, which can be discussed here provided we have the sources. Generalrelative (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the policy, however there are also some sources which retroactively describe Mary Whitehouse as the "Original Cancel culture" or the "Queen of cancel culture'. [], []. Its one of those things that is hard to include on a Wikipedia, because "cancel culture" as a term did not exist whilst she was in force - yet from a modern perspective, that's a reasonable and often held opinion of many journalists and writers. I understand the original research POV, however from an encyclopaedic POV the current writing feels like it sprung into existence spontaneously without discussion of how similar pressure groups in history achieved censorship. In effect i am not suggesting we personally connect the dots, but more add a section with a broader scope as an introduction to pressure groups and censoring so it can be understood how "cancel culture" is effectively a modern version which has been allowed for by social media. Garfie489 (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think the source survey supports calling it a "phenomenon", unqualified. At least from the sources examined above, there are enough that qualify it as a political term or epithet that it seems inappropriate to treat it as an unambiguously real phenomenon. Also, many of the sources quoted above don't really support the change - see eg. the Pew Research article, which actually introduces the term by saying The phrase “cancel culture” is said to have originated from a relatively obscure slang term – “cancel,” referring to breaking up with someone – used in a 1980s song. This term was then referenced in film and television and later evolved and gained traction on social media. Over the past several years, cancel culture has become a deeply contested idea in the nation’s political discourse. There are plenty of debates over what it is and what it means, including whether it’s a way to hold people accountable, or a tactic to punish others unjustly, or a mix of both. And some argue that cancel culture doesn’t even exist. The New York Times style magazine piece actually introduces it by saying So much has been written about cancel culture in the past year that weariness sets in just reading the words. What it is, what to call it and whether it even exists are all in dispute. The term is shambolically applied to incidents both online and off that range from vigilante justice to hostile debate to stalking, intimidation and harassment. Likewise, the Vox piece starts with a note that it is out of date, and links to a more recent one that begins with “Cancel culture,” as a concept, feels inescapable. The phrase is all over the news, tossed around in casual social media conversation; it’s been linked to everything from free speech debates to Mr. Potato Head. Many of the ones that most stridently treat it as a clearly-real phenomenon as opposed to a disputed political epithet are also opinion pieces or WP:BIASED sources; most of the higher-quality coverage addresses it, largely, as a phrase with complicated and disputed meaning or applicability, rather than as a clearly-defined phenomenon. --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced by this, though admittedly this was my prior understanding as well. Generalrelative (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Original research
I ask that engage here rather than edit warring to restore original research to the article. It may be that a background paragraph of this nature could be included, but it would need to be based on reliable sources. Generalrelative (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access
— Assignment last updated by Roamingtiger007 (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"most often as a recognition that society will exact accountability for offensive conduct"
This is too vague. Exacting accountability might be (for example) requesting an apology. Not necessarily cancelling, or trying to shut a person down, lose their job, etc. Equinox ◑ 22:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture
— Assignment last updated by TopRamen444 (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: First Year English Composition 1001
— Assignment last updated by RuthBenander (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Usage differences, left vs. right
et al: I'd like to have the article mention somewhere that the usage of the terms "cancellation", "cancel culture", etc. are more common among right-wing folks who have been ostracized than among left wing folks who have been ostracized. The text that was just removed did that and cited NPR. Please help me to understand what way of achieving this mention would be acceptable to you. Thank you — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 16:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn't get that from the article but its quite possible I missed it - direct quotes clarifying and supporting the claim would be ok. Alternate claims/interpretations also welcome as long as they are supported. For instance I agree with the point in the examples about McCarthyism being the same thing but not called that - but that wasn't mentioned in the article so I wasn't clear how it was derived. Conan The Librarian (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that we can always better our sources and our use of direct quotes, though I'm not so sure that removing the current text is the appropriate intermediate step in this case. Regardless, if you or anyone else finds better sources and direct quotes, please make edits — don't wait for me.  Thank you — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 14:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

NYT/Siena College survey
I would like to restore this text:

A March 2022 New York Times/Siena College survey found that 84 percent of adults said it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism. The survey also found that 46 percent of respondents said they felt less free to talk about politics compared to a decade ago. [citing both the survey results and the NYT opinion report on it]

This has been objected to by @FormalDude because it is a poll, and polls are "less reliable". But the whole public opinion section is just polls. One from Pew, one from Morning Consult, one from Harvard and one from The Hill. This NYT one is the most recent, and I don't see any reason not to include it. Zanahary (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @FormalDude, I would appreciate your response to the fact that the whole section in question is just the results of surveys. Does your objection still stand? Zanahary (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My objection is that the poll is sourced to an opinion piece. If it is discussed by a reliable secondary source, it would be fine. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  00:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254
— Assignment last updated by Mosbug1 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)