Talk:Woke

A separate article for "wokeism" or "wokeness"?
Hello. I have registered a lot of the debate on this page, and I am wondering if it might be an idea to create a separate article for "wokeness/wokeism". Several notable individuals have written on this (i.e. "wokeness", not "woke") as some perceived political inclination, worldview, phenomena or ideology, and provided historical context for it. In other words, while derived from "woke", when "wokeism" is used by historians and others, it seems to refer to a contemporary political ideology, not in the original meaning of attentiveness to discrimination, etc. For example, it is noteworthy how many historians have framed "wokeness" or "wokeism" as a post-Christian revival. Here Ian Buruma discusses "wokeness" as "an essentially Protestant phenomenon"; historian Niall Ferguson comments in this talk on the "turgid and ultimately nihilistic cult of wokeism which has much more, it seems to me, in common with the crazier aspects of the Protestant Reformation than it has with Romanticism". (Ignore the negative personal opinion, focus on his comparison). Similarly, historian Tom Holland draws parallels in his book Dominion, even naming a chapter "Woke" (Holland does not take a negative position, only attempting to see it through the prism of Christianity in America). (Here is one tweet further showing his opinion). Buruma, by the way, references John McWhorter, who has published the book Woke Racism, again drawing direct comparisons with Calvinism. This is but a handful of the stuff floating around at the moment on the "Christian side". Others have written on it, such as Francis Fukuyama in his book Identity, to name one. (Here in this tweet he contends wokeness "is a deformation and not the essence of liberalism". [Edit: and Here (at 5:18 and especially 37:41 onwards) is a short reference in passing by John Gray, who says "a species of hyper-liberalism, often called 'woke'", is a branch of liberalism where speech is restricted in the name of progress]. Another "school" as it were prefers to link it to post-modernism and identity politics; Helen Pluckrose has written much on what she (and others) call "Critical Social Justice", which she claims is "colloquially" called "wokeism" (Cynical Theories). Finally, of course, you have all the very political crap from Conservatives who argue it somehow has to do with "Marxism", which more often than not seems very connected to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. This is uninteresting in all ways except merely to show the large debate over taxonomy. In other words, there is a wide range of analysis ranging from the sensible to the very not sensible. Add to this all the thousands of articles in major outlets (New York Times, Atlantic, etc.). The Economist joins many other authors to write about a "Great Awokening", viewing it as a part of the "illiberal Left". All in all, an impression starts to form that what is being discussed is more than "woke" as originally defined, but rather as shorthand for a certain set of political assumptions. The very fact that so many struggle to define it, and define it differently, is worthy of note.

My main point is that there seems to be a plethora of historians and political scientists who have written on "wokeness" as something distinct, and tried to analyze it in a historical and ideological context. In this there is wide disagreement, which itself is noteworthy. To keep this article clean and covering the original source from which this other things "wokeness" has been derived, might a separate article for it be worth considering?

I would be very interested in hearing your opinions on this. Euor (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the split, as the second term has a distinct meaning and has attracted sufficient attention to pass the threshold of notability. I also note Wikidata already holds separate items for the two concepts: and . fgnievinski (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. SparklyNights 02:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's really enough to support a separate article and would be concerned that it could become a WP:POVFORK, since the sources you presented mostly seem to indicate that "wokeism" is a pejorative neologism used by people who set out to criticize the concepts that they use it to encompass and define. I'd also be concerned that there's a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage; pejorative political neologisms are dime-a-dozen. Also, I'm not convinced that they're talking about something distinct - these seem to be the same topic. Most of the sources you cite use "woke" repeatedly and talk about the precise history described in this article; what would be the point of separating them out? --Aquillion (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aquillion How about splitting "wokeness", instead? fgnievinski (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, what is the difference between "woke" and "wokeism"? Is there even a difference? That seems to be the crux of the matter. Tadreidms (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tadreidms Their meaning is well established in dictionaries, for example:
 * https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wokeism
 * https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wokeness
 * Crucially, one of the two terms is derogatory. fgnievinski (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your link for "wokeness" just redirects to "woke" which somewhat undermines the case for a split. Splitting off "wokeism" as a derogatory term is almost certain to result in a POV fork. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll copy and paste the definitions here:
 * Wokeness, woke: Someone who is "woke" is very aware of social and political unfairness.
 * Wokeism (informal, often derogatory): the behaviour and attitudes of people who are sensitive to social and political injustice.
 * The latter is a criticism for the former. fgnievinski (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to WP:POVFORK concerns. Since all three terms are now mainly used to attack what is deemed "wokeness" by critics, I expect any spin-off article to become a POV magnet for a bunch of primary sources such as opinion pieces written from that perspective. If there were a WP:SIZE issue, a spin-off might be warranted, but that's not the case here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In particular, I contend that Helen Pluckrose and John McWhorter are not reliable sources for broad sociopolitical issues. The source from The Economist is an editorial, which is a primary source. Whatever Niall Ferguson's academic bona fides, an interview published by a conservative think tank is another primary source. All these primary sources together fail to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources for the concept of "wokeness", in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Harpers article by Ian Buruma is primarily about the term "woke" itself, and uses "wokeness" and "woke" basically interchangeably, depending on whether the author needs a noun or an adjective. Buruma certainly does not give a definition or description of "wokeness" as separate from "woke". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here (at 5:18, and later 37:41 he further develops this, and even later when he talks about its "antinomianism") is a short reference in passing by John Gray, who says "a species of hyper-liberalism, often called 'woke'", is a branch of liberalism where speech is restricted in the name of progress. (37:41: "woke movements are vehicles for a secular hyper-Christianity emptied of any sense of mystery and any commitment to forgiveness", in his opinion). Another sign that many thinkers see something ideologically distinct and noteworthy here. (There seems to be a distinct argument over whether "woke" is distinct from liberalism (as Fukuyama thinks), or a natural branch of it (like Gray thinks). I have purchased some other recent books covering these topics, such as by Yascha Mounk, or Greg Lukianoff, but I haven't read them so I will not add anything except to say that the topic is also broached there -- by Mounk in quite detail, judging by the index. I understand all the criticisms, and it must be done correctly, but I find it undeniable that there is something more here -- which is the talking point of many thinkers, philosophers, and, yes, columnists, than it "being aware of social inequalities" or whatever.--Euor (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and? A short reference in passing hardly qualifies as WP:SIGCOV, let alone a comment made in a lecture rather than a peer-reviewed academic publication. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That refers to the Gray bit, I assume. Listening to the entirity, it was a regular topic of discussion towards the end, wherein he outlines quite clear thoughts on "woke" from a philosophical point of view. But beyond that, someone like Mounk has not written about it in passing, but instead to a great extent in his recent book as mentioned.--Euor (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yascha Mounk's academic specialty in international affairs doesn't exactly qualify him as an expert on the subject. I note that his book is from a trade publisher, not an academic or educational publisher. That makes me think it's just another attempt to cash in on the trend of attacking so-called "wokeness" rather than a serious analysis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is your opinion of Mounk to be held as more authoritative than an actual, published source -- which now joins a long list of credible, published authors which I have mentioned? Are we to believe that you would be equally critical of a book from trade publishers if it aligned with the article's content as is? This is goalpost-shifting. I understand you have some allergy to critical views of "wokeness", as, yes, there is a large industry of right-wing grifters writing on it. This shouldn't drown out the serious authors mentioned here, though (from Fukuyama and Holland, to Gray and Mounk -- which are only a selected handful. Why these are to be so easily dismissed by you -- meaning you view your authority as higher -- I find astonishing.).--Euor (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I maintain that most of the authors you listed are credible on this topic. And yes, I would be equally critical of any book from a trade publisher regardless of POV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Add a section Add a section for "wokeness" in this article. Google Scholar mentions the word a number of times. Here are some sources from The Economist
 * How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?
 * https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/09/04/how-did-american-wokeness-jump-from-elite-schools-to-everyday-life
 * How to cancel “cancel culture”: Two new books examine the brokenness of wokeness
 * https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/10/19/how-to-cancel-cancel-culture
 * Tadreidms (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * An editorial on the subject of the "illiberal left" and a book review are hardly authoritative sources on the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSPSOURCES The Economist is considered reliable. For one example, I see Donald Trump uses sources from The Economist for statements of fact. Why would, for example, "Analyzing Trump Inc" (From the Tower to the White House) be considered acceptable (and used as statement of fact) but "The illiberal left" (How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?) be not? What is the difference between the two?
 * Tadreidms (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference is that between a neutral statement of fact supported by multiple sources ([Trump's] investments underperformed the stock and New York property markets) and using this source as a basis for describing an entire subtopic. We know from other sources that nowadays "woke/wokeness" are used mainly pejoratively amid an anti-woke backlash; any source talking about so-called wokeness must be evaluated in that context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Revisiting this topic almost a year since I published it, I can simply say that it seems to have become ever more relevant to make such a distinction. Still I believe Sangdeboeuf makes a good argument that it must be based on rigorous sources. I notice a slew of books coming out from various university presses that might be relevant (say, for example Musa al-Gharbi's upcoming book — do read the description for an example of a use of "wokeness" as a distinct ideology), so I believe this talk section is still relevant...--Euor (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Possible protection
I believe this article should be protected, due to recent vandalism. Avishai11 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and request an increase in protection at WP:RPP or via Twinkle (if enabled). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about vandalism, but this article is just plain wrong here in the UK. Here, Woke does not mean "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" at all. It means something like "unnecessarily proscribing and over-analysing relatively benign things and topics", and is very close to "political correctness". Is it really still widely used in the original sense in the US? If not, the article should benre-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:15bd:4c01:d553:966a:641a:5c9b (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The definition you wrote here is not a regional variant of the UK, but a political variant of how a specific subcategory of conservatives define it. People outside of that political niche define it differently in the UK and some conservatives in the US define it the same way you did (beyond people just defining it as "anything I don't like" in so many words). 2A02:1210:1C27:2900:E4C4:DC39:DAAA:EE91 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The definition you wrote here is not a regional variant of the UK, but a political variant of how a specific subcategory of conservatives define it. People outside of that political niche define it differently in the UK and some conservatives in the US define it the same way you did (beyond people just defining it as "anything I don't like" in so many words). 2A02:1210:1C27:2900:E4C4:DC39:DAAA:EE91 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"Woke agenda" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woke_agenda&redirect=no Woke agenda] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Citation?
I feel like the assertion that "Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass..." should have a citation explaining where the "year first used" cited comes from.

Thoughts? 2601:203:200:9D0:DD8D:592E:434A:751 (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Don't any of the three citations mention that? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Origins
Woke was coined by the African American writer from Harlem, William Melvin Kelley, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. This should be included. 2A00:23EE:2148:64B7:C5EC:AEE6:6C31:D7D0 (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)