Talk:Woke/Archive 6

Virginia gubernatorial election
I've removed these statements. There are myriad news sources quoting someone saying something is "woke" or "anti-woke", but unless the sources say something such uses specifically, they don't add much to an understanding of the topic. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment
Suggested text:"Former US President Barack Obama argues that the attempt for ideological purity by individuals claiming to be woke is counterproductive. 'This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically 'woke' and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly. The world is messy; there are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids, and share certain things with you.'https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/politics/obama-woke-cancel-culture.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/31/obama-woke-shaming-bipartisan-support-yang-coulter-gabbard/ https://www.npr.org/2019/10/31/774918215/obama-says-democrats-dont-always-need-to-be-politically-woke https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50239261 Obama doubts the efficacy toward progressive change of certain activist' tactic of online shaming. 'There is this sense sometimes of 'the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people, and that’s enough.' Like if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn't do something right or used the wrong verb. Then, I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself because, 'Man, you see how woke I was? I called you out.' I'm going to get on TV. Watch my show. Watch Grown-ish. You know, that's not activism. That's not bringing about change. If all you're doing is casting stones, you're probably not going to get that far.'https://www.huffpost.com/entry/barack-obama-twitter-activism_n_5db9292ee4b0bb1ea3716bb7 https://graziamagazine.com/articles/yara-shahidi-interviews-barack-obama-about-cancel-culture/ https://www.marianne.net/monde/barack-obama-appelle-les-progressistes-cesser-d-etre-sectaires-et-manicheens"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC) This wholesale addition will not necessitate removal or change to any other text in the article; and, I suggest it be threaded in -- by its date? -- into influential uses of/commentary about woke; however, an alternative would be for the article to maintain, as at present, essentially separate "pro"/"con" sections, in which case, it could either inaugurating a new section about criticism of the woke movement or else be used somewhat ill-fittingly to expand slightly the article's existing section concerning derogatory use of the term.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comments at Talk:Woke/Archive 1. This material tells us nothing new about the topic of the article, which is the word woke. Obama's commentary and the news coverage of it focus on the topics of cancel culture/callout culture, Internet activism/slacktivism, and online shaming, all of which have their own articles. Per WP:NEO, we need sources that are the term, not just sources that  the term. Efforts to expand this article are complicated by the fact that the term nowadays is used mostly as an insult, which makes any use of the term as a "lens" through which to view other topics inherently POV. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and I doubt this one-off usage by the former president passes the two-year test, let alone the ten-year test. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't require wp:Crystal balling to know it will still be notable ten years from now. (Cf., for example):


 * German wikipedia: "Woke" - Rezeption und Kritik - USA - "2019 kritisierte der frühere US-Präsident Barack Obama eine Pranger-Kultur von Aktivisten in sozialen Medien mit den Worten „Seid nicht zu woke!“ und erhielt dafür viel Zuspruch. Nach Interpretation von Leslie Gauditz im SRF habe er damit nicht grundsätzlich kritisiert, dass Menschen woke seien, sondern dass sie sich darauf ausruhten, anderen vorzuwerfen, nicht woke genug zu sein."Danja Nüesch: Protestbegriff «Woke» – «Woke»: Die Wut allein bewirkt wenig. Interview mit Leslie Gauditz, SRF, 7. November 2019.
 * Spanish wikipedia: "Woke" - Criticismo - "O ex-presidente dos Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, expressou comentários que foram interpretados como uma crítica à cultura woke, afirmando que "essa ideia de pureza e de que você nunca se compromete e está politicamente acordado, e todas essas coisas — você deve superar isso rapidamente. O mundo é uma bagunça. Existem ambiguidades. Pessoas que fazem coisas realmente boas têm falhas". user=thehill|number= 1189409128587956226|date=29 de outubro de 2019 |title=Fmr. President Barack Obama: "This idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're politically woke, and all that stuff -- you should get over that quickly. The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws."}} 
 * French wikipedia: "Woke" - Critiques du mouvement woke - "L'ancien président des États-Unis Barack Obama a montré son opposition à la course à la pureté idéologique des personnes se revendiquant woke, qu'il juge contre-productive. Il a déclaré : « Cette idée de pureté, que vous n'êtes pas compromis, que vous êtes politiquement woke (éveillé) – vous devriez la laisser derrière vous, et rapidement. Le monde est en désordre. Il y a des ambiguïtés. Les gens qui accomplissent de très bonnes choses ont aussi des défauts. Les gens contre qui vous vous battez peuvent aimer leurs enfants et même, vous savez, avoir des points communs avec vous »undefined undefined. Barack Obama critique également les stratégies déployées en ligne par certains militants, s'inquiétant de cette tendance woke, particulièrement au sein des campus universitaires Il y a des gens qui pensent que pour changer les choses, il suffit de constamment juger et critiquer les autres}}, en l'illustrant par un exemple « Si je publie un tweet ou un hashtag dénonçant vos mauvaises actions, ou le fait que vous avez utilisé le mauvais mot ou le mauvais verbe, et qu'ensuite je peux me détendre et être fier de moi parce que je suis super woke en vous ayant montré du doigt, ça n'est pas pour autant de l'activisme. Ce n'est pas comme ça qu'on fait changer les choses »Lien web. Obama ajoute encore : « Si vous vous contentez de jeter la pierre aux autres (sur les réseaux sociaux notamment), vous n'irez probablement pas très loin »Lien web.
 * Portuguese wikipedia:"Woke" - Criticismo - "O ex-presidente dos Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, expressou comentários que foram interpretados como uma crítica à cultura woke, afirmando que "essa ideia de pureza e de que você nunca se compromete e está politicamente acordado, e todas essas coisas — você deve superar isso rapidamente. O mundo é uma bagunça. Existem ambiguidades. Pessoas que fazem coisas realmente boas têm falhas".tweet undefined --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The contents of other Wikipedias proves nothing, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In fact only a crystal ball would enable one to claim that these passages would even be there in 2029. Criticism of the woke movement is unavoidably POV, since virtually no activists identify themselves with such a "woke movement"; that term is only used as a partisan insult. Which describe Obama's comments as influential? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * [Comment threaded in after above material collapsed]: Foreign wikipedia's inclusion of Obama's "nuanced" criticism of the lexical entry woke I used nuanced to mean his contrasting effectively-advancing-its-cause with such criticisms of imperfections that Obama implies performative. ]) were provided by me so their respective reliable sourcings could be gleaned (and not to "cite Wikipedia" itself as a reliable source).--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Obama's criticism of woke was reported in an unfathomable number of reliable sources literally from around the globe. (Thus, to claim it is not notable would be somewhat akin to claiming that even MLK's 23jun1963 Detroit iteration of his "I Have a Dream" activist sermon is not.) Be this as it may, in that sources in the proposed text say in their headlines and article-body text that Obama criticizes woke, and in that this criticism is so very notable, indicates our article ought to include this material in some fashion.
 * However, if certain Wikipedians believe, if my understanding of them is correct, that what Obama did was something other than to criticize woke -- and that these sources did something other than to report on this same -- and promote and propose this understanding in accordance with a more correct understanding of woke's meaning: such is fine -- but only as their philosophical arguments and not as an editing rationale, in that so doing would run contrary to the necessity of the non-active stance required in the gathering of Wikipedia's tertiary material. Indeed, for such a philosophical argument as this to actually make its way into the article would require that sources be found that make it, after which it could be presented in paraphrase with them cited. Skipping this step in order to impose certain Wikipedians' understandings of a term's meaning by stealth simply isn't the Wiki way.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yesterday's weather was also reported around the globe. That doesn't make it encyclopedic; Wikpedia is not a newspaper. To make a claim that something was influential, you would need a reliable source documenting said influence. I'm not seeing where any of the sources say Obama criticizes woke, full stop. Can you give an example? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, if prefer a paraphrase(*) that's better than the one in the 6dec2020 Essence[https://www.essence.com/news/politics/obama-criticizes-woke-culture-says-its-not-real-activism/ ("Obama Criticizes 'Woke' Culture, Says It's Not Real Activism: 'If All You're Doing Is Casting Stones, You're probably not Going to Get that Far. That's Easy to Do.' - President Barack Obama"), do please advise.
 * _______
 * (*) Btw, if there's a choice between OVERQUOTING and Close paraphrasing, WP seems to prefer the latter. --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Quoting that source: Here we see that Obama criticized and, but nowhere does it explain what Obama meant by woke. Once again, the comments are clearly focused on call-out culture, Internet activism, and political correctness (i.e. "purity"), which are not the topic of this article. The only statement directly about woke is  Equating woke with these specific groups needs better sourcing than one opinion piece IMO. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC) edited 19:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggested for where? Is it a change, a wholesale addition? Is there implied text removed? It would help to provide [any] context for those who weren't already part of the discussion. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I added such info below the suggested text; thanks.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * : contributes almost nothing to an understanding of woke. Specific uses of the term currently in the article seem focused on ones that specifically address the meaning of the word or ones that drove popularization of the term. The proposal suffers from including both excessively long quotations and unnecessary paraphrases of them. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It doesn't seem to add much to the understanding of Woke. Sea Ane (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can see the first two sentences of this fitting in the "As a pejorative term" section and being somewhat useful to the reader, because the former President is kind of using it sarcastically here. But certainly not the whole thing as it's written. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the sources say it was sarcastic, though. And they all focus more on issues of cancel culture and online shaming, not the word woke. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose it could possibly be part of a larger new section, but there's nowhere to plug it in right now. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 19:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It doesn't seem to add much to the understanding of Woke - as a term. This is simply use of a term and it isn't even really clear what Obama means. An "attempt for ideological purity by individuals claiming to be woke is counterproductive" - I would have thought that "An attempt for ideological purity by individuals claiming to be almost anything might be counterproductive"! Merely claiming to be virtuous is usually hypocrisy, but Obama says nothing about the 'virtue' supposedly claimed, nor much about those making such claims. He uses a trendy word to make a point he has made many times, that progress can require pragmatism and compromise. My teachers were making much the same point to me many years ago! Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever the sense/nonsense of Obama's argument, it's nevertheless proved notable. (Note it's coverage was but recently removed from our article after its long-time inclusion, after all.) Coverage of counter claims about Obama's points' validity -- if taken up in a public forum and if found to be made by somebody appropriately prominent -- would belong in our article, too.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anyone has argued against the sense/nonsense of Obama's argument. Users here seem to be arguing that the comments are not relevant to article. Long-time inclusion is beside the point; consensus on what belongs in an article can change at any time. In fact substantially identical material is already included under . --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you hadn't removed it (in that I believe that if those with an editing regime similar to the one applied on this page were editing the Cancel culture page much, it wouldn't be able to be found there). Some acts certain observers think reasonable or even exemplary in, per se, "wokeness" (read: in their "countering of complacency with regard to societal subjugations and nonequalities"(?)), by their very nature, inevitably yet other observers will think these same acts as not reasonable nor exemplary, even overzealous (or, perhaps, simply counterproductive: Indeed, if I understand right, both Obama and McWhorter simply find certain acts counterproductive and even self-identify as supporting the goals of "wokeness"). In any case, encyclopedic coverage includes all prominent views. (And, what's also been deleted from this article are mentions of prominent instances of woke's various receptions: outside of North America; in political contexts; in religious contexts; etc.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In any case, encyclopedic coverage includes all prominent views. The views in question are already covered under Cancel culture. If needed, that section could be expanded. Judging by the !votes, we haven't seen justification for why they belong in article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC) edited 23:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "[ ]Judging by the !votes[ ]"
 * Hey, I'm not pollyannish. Given even MIT/Berkeley are not immune to impressions they bow to certain present social trends, I doubt WP's editorial decisions on political articles would be able to do so, as well. Whereas I grant that this discussion's voters' (ah, which I spell that way because I think our very resort to referencing them, without really referencing any specific arguments, reveals them as such and not as "!voters -- ) ad hoc rationales seem arrived at sincerely, I also self-speculate that these same hint at such editors' mistrust that others in general -- if including those not passing some kind of subtle, ideological litmus test -- could "responsibly" handle the ersatz complexity of giving neutral coverage to both left and centrist discourse regarding woke (whether leaning "center-right," a la the wsj etc., or even "center-left," a la the londoneconomist and others).--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As others have said, it's not at all clear that Obama's remarks are focused on "woke" specifically; I read it as him simply using it as a shorthand for "modern progressives" and that the rest of his remarks focus on a subset of that group. --Aquillion (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

UK context
This article is completely wrong in the UK in 2021. The term is solely pejorative and the article should say this in the first paragraph - as it stands it would mislead a reader whose first language is not English. It is fine to make the historical perspective but not to deceive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.141.124 (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if true, this does not contradict what the lead section states. In any case we would need a published, reliable source to back up this analysis. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Centrist Democrats
The Dallas Observer article doesn't say anything about centrist Democrats. The Hill and CNN quote several people the term as a synonym for political correctness or cancel culture, but say very little about the term woke itself. which is the subject of the article. The sources don't directly say that these uses are pejorative either. We need sources specifically the term and how it's used. This is similar to the comments by Barack Obama discussed above. It's also recentist. The Democrats' electoral fortunes are better summarized at Democratic Party (United States). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Controversy over "wokisme" in French politics
Wokisme has been a substantial topic of political controversy in France over the past year. Examples of sources discussing this:
 * French education minister’s anti-woke mission
 * Emmanuel Macron is wrong, wokeism was born in France
 * Macron Minister Slams ‘Wokeness,’ Wants to Keep it Out of France
 * French people have discovered the word ‘woke’ and it’s terrible
 * Claims that teaching Latin is racist make my mind boggle, says French minister leading ‘war on woke’
 * France Rejects American ‘Woke’ Culture; President Macron Says It Is ‘Racializing’ France]
 * French education minister declares war on American 'wokeism'
 * French dictionary adds non-binary pronoun, sparking anger from politicians ("French politicians have accused one of the country’s leading dictionaries of “woke ideology” after it added the non-binary pronoun iel to its online edition")
 * La mission anti-woke de Jean-Michel Blanquer
 * Jean-Michel Blanquer : « La France et sa jeunesse doivent échapper à l’idéologie woke »
 * LA CANCEL CULTURE EST «DÉSTABILISATRICE POUR NOS CIVILISATIONS», ESTIME JEAN-MICHEL BLANQUER
 * Les coulisses de l’opération Blanquer contre le wokisme
 * Michel Wieviorka : "Non, la France n'est pas envahie par le 'wokisme' !"

I think some account of the function which the term "woke" (and its derivatives) performs in French politics, as a term to oppose Americanisation (some would even claim as a term to express anti-Americanism), its use by the French hard right to rally voters (Marine Le Pen, Eric Zemmour), and its use by the French mainstream right (President Macron's government and his ministers, in particular Elisabeth Moreno and Jean-Michel Blanquer) as an attempt to counter that threat and woo back those voters, would be a useful addition to the article, and especially helpful in giving the article a more global perspective. 159.196.170.230 (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure how much of this is specifically about the term woke and how much are just trivial uses of the term. How many are even reliable sources, and not just opinion pieces? We already have an article on the politics of France. What specifically did you want to add? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think woke as a pejorative term and woke capitalism could be put inside a "Criticism" section and this also added there. I agree it gives a more international perspective on the backlash against the term. Right now the article seems to be focused only on its criticism inside the US but, as the article itself mentions, the term is global enough that the Oxford Dictionary added it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:2CAA:1001:43C4:F6F6 (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

2021-11-20 edit request
The page Woke has the following quote, but the reference #28 is incorrect - it links to a different source.

Columnist David Brooks wrote in 2017, "To be woke is to be radically aware and justifiably paranoid. It is to be cognizant of the rot pervading the power structures."[28]

The correct reference is https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/opinion/how-cool-works-in-america-today.html

--PastorLuterano (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 20:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The original citation to a secondary source quoting Brooks was correct. I've re-added it to be more explicit. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

NPOV, NOR, UNDUE
Which sentence best follows our policies of NPOV and NOR, as well as UNDUE?

"One journalist suggested that this "anti-woke posture" can be connected to a supposed long-standing promotion of backlash politics by the Republican Party, wherein it promotes fear in response to activism by African Americans as well as changing cultural norms.[48][1]"

or

"Bacon connects this "anti-woke posture" to the Republican Party's long-standing promotion of backlash politics, by promoting white and conservative fears in response to political gains by African Americans and changing cultural norms respectively."

...

I suggest that the second is inappropriate. First, giving one-name privileges to "Bacon" suggests he's an academic research guru; he's not, he's just some journalist who wrote for 538. Second, the sentence states as factual "the Republican Party's long-standing promotion of backlash politics, by promoting white and conservative fears in response to political gains by African Americans and changing cultural norms respectively" which is WHOA really POV as well as being completely unsourced. Red  Slash  21:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that moving away from the mononymic 'Bacon' is a good move. I also don't think this article is the place to be stating in wikivoice that the GOP promotes backlash politics, unless it's commonly stated as a fact in RS that are discussing 'woke'. The Intelligencer piece has a probably Wikipedia commonly has too: when you start a sentence with "Bacon believes", should the entire sentence be read as attribute opinion, or are some clauses apparently stating facts? How about Firefangledfeathers 21:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This version seems fine, so I've edited the section accordingly, omitting the word "supposed", which is simple editorializing by Wikipedians that unduly casts doubt on the source material. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of the woke ideology, what it means for it's critics, including those on the left.
Hi, I've noticed that the page has been edited in order to remove that the ideology has been criticized by both the left and the right in the political spectrum (It's even done by some Marxists). There is even still the source left that Obama had criticized the "woke" under the page, yet the entry has been removed.

I think there are a few facts that need to be put in place so that the entry is more impartial and clear.

- The critics of the "woke" movement aren't talking about the "stay woke" movement. They have appropriated it instead of Social Justice Warrior, it is also called sometimes the illiberal left, the regressive left or identity Marxist.

- It is quite clear when you look in more details about what the critics are specifically criticizing is post-modernism, "critical theories" and their later developments in the States. There is quite few of them (critical race theory, intersectionality, gender theory, standpoint epistemology, etc.) The term woke is used as a practical umbrella term to talk about a form of radical identitarian social constructivism (which is not very practical and obscure even if we cite the specifics like I did.) and the issues that are emerging from it's application: dogmatism, cancel culture, racial essentialism, tribalism obscurantism, etc.

- Left wing scientists and other academics since the 90's (including Chomsky) have been criticizing what is now being called the woke ideology. Which is in conflict with the naturalism of the natural sciences and its methodology of acquiring knowledge. See "sciences wars" and criticism of post-modernism. Also see Harper's letter.

- The ideas which concern the "woke ideology" have broadly left academia within less than a decade ago to enter other institutions and mainstream discourse.

- I could also include a list of left wing academics that are critical of what is now being called the woke ideology. In their view it is a subversion of the progressive agenda.

- The Fair fondation (Fondation Against Intolerance and Racism) is a bypartisan effort and are an alternative and critics of the woke ideology.

- I could also provide specific sources of statements.

I'm new here so I just want to be sure that my suggestion is welcome. This quite a controversial topic, and as a progressive that is against the woke ideology, I'm quite concerned that the page has been modified this way. Thanks!

Lepage Gabriel (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read some of the previous archived discussions, including the recent RfC on including Obama's remarks. This article is not about any "movement" or "ideology", including post-modernism, "critical theories" and their later developments ... critical race theory, intersectionality, gender theory, standpoint epistemology ... radical identitarian social constructivism ... dogmatism, cancel culture, racial essentialism, tribalism[,] obscurantism, etc. We would need a published, reliable source connecting any of these things with the term "woke". Even then, the terms "woke movement" and "woke ideology" are normally used as deliberate insults, raising due weight concerns. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sangdeboeuf, I don't think it's an honest presentation of the term if 1-for you the concept either is an insult (because some people use it that way) then it has to be disassociated with what serious intellectuals both from the left and the right are using it for (to talk about an identitarian social constructivist ideology). 2- That the term woke should only to be associated with the "stay woke" meaning ---then the "woke" meaning or "woke ideology/movement" as used by again, said serious intellectuals, that this page has to be disassociated with the meaning of the latter. In both ways, your strategy to remove the association with what we mean by it doesn't make this article truly represent impartially what the term means today as we are using it.

If I provide the sources then this article should actually represent what we mean as used in both sides of the political spectrum (to represent an ideology not just an "insult"). I'm curious have you never really heard about the link about CRT, post-modernism and so on when we talk about wokism or woke ideology, seems pretty common. Btw it's already linked with CRT in the article. To say that "woke" is not also used as associated with far left pathological behaviors like dogmatism, cancel culture (unreasonable ostracization), tribalism and racial essentialism (See CRT) that's quite a stretch. It should not just enter the category "insult" in order to dismiss specific pathological behavior from the far left who fancy representing itself as reasonable progressives. I don't know how this position can pass the test being confronted with facts. Would you be open for me provide the sources and that we modify the article accordingly? I'm quite busy so it might take some time to provide enough sources to make my point evident. Again I'm also a newbie here, I might need some help. Lepage Gabriel (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perry Bacon Jr, cited in our article, writes: "in culture and politics today, the most prominent uses of 'woke' are as a pejorative". You don't need my permission to post sources here. Once again, please provide sources that connect the term "woke" with identitarian social constructivist ideology, not just your own interpretation that that's what they're doing. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What sources identify a coherent "woke ideology," who do they purport is espousing it, and what are their alleged principles and beliefs? Who alleges that there are "far left pathological behaviors" (whatever that means) at work? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

AAVE
Can the reference to AAVE be linked to the WIKI page on African-American Vernacular English? --R.W.Davies (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Already done! First sentence reads, "Woke is an adjective meaning 'alert to racial prejudice and discrimination' that originated in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE)."  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allyborghi. Peer reviewers: Watkina, Abamzai, Ujwalamurthy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Not describing my experience
Woke in my experience is someone perceiving racism in something that is not there on behalf of the group that could be offended. A better definition is a person invoking their white privilege to decide what offends other people or a person who caters to overly sensitive people. 97.118.137.169 (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Woke is really hard to define, since it has two concurrent almost opposite definition. We have not done a good job at this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Revert
Hi @Sangdeboeuf, you reverted my edit and I don't understand why. The article is a WP:RS analyzing an event which was centered around the meaning of the word and the usage in society. How is that not relevant to add in this section? Especially since it's broadening the scope of the article beyond the United States, which makes it useful. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The source is about a Dutch right-wing party's opposition to what they deem "woke", not about the general meaning of the term. The only real of how the term is used occurs in the first paragraph: "The 'woke' debate rages on in newspaper opinion pages, on social media and in right-wing podcasts. The idea is that a progressive minority wants to combat social injustice such as racism and misogyny by superimposing their own intolerance". It does not say who specifically holds this view, which is not very helpful IMO. The source describes a conference that was "dominated by 'the worrying development' of 'woke thinking but doesn't explain what such "woke thinking" supposedly is. The conference was evidently a  event, but newsworthy does not mean encyclopedic. About the only pertinent info I see in the article is that the political party JA21 "is trying to become the one and only 'anti-woke party. Even this is not analyzed in much depth. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sangdeboeuf It was not about the party their opinion, it was organized by their scientific organization and it seems that independent scholars were invited, such as Andreas Kinneging. The main point of the sentence I added was explaining the difficulty of defining the exact terms, which was observed by the journalist in case as well. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Such difficulty is inherently subjective, and in this case is merely one journalist's opinion. None of the quotes attributed to Kinneging are explicitly related to "wokeness" (whatever that is) or the term woke. I just don't think the coverage of this event passses WP:10YT. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

New source
An article by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown from two days ago.Great Britain made me woke, and that’s something both Labour and the Conservatives can’t seem to grasp. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * it offers definitions. Doug Weller  talk 09:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The source is labeled "Opinion", and is explicitly written from a first-person perspective. The author, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, is a well-known commentator but hardly a subject-matter expert. Seems WP:UNDUE to cite this column for any significant claims. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2022
apparently ungrammatical particle: "echoes Martin Luther King, Jr.'s exhortation to 'to stay awake" 82.132.185.94 (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted, correction made. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Woke article

 * I moved the following discussion from my talk page because I think this is a more appropriate place for it.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m not an editor or participant in Wikipedia in any way other than reading. I noticed that you have had some input on the “Woke” article.

I don’t know how to edit or add to the ongoing content stream, but when I was growing up, in the 1970’s and 80’s, I recall references to Dr. King’s “Stay Awake” to adjust to new ideas, to remain vigilant and face the challenge of change, a pretty clear invocation in my youthful mind of the numerous biblical references to “waking up” to see properly having not understood previously, stay awake (in that same condition of spiritual understanding), to be vigilant for Jesus’ return.

All of these meanings are captured by Dr King and numerous preachers, and even my Catholic grade school teachers, as a powerful way to understand how to respond to and challenge racial unfairness and injustice. In that context, the leap from awake to ‘woke’ is really just a cultural linguistic leap of the vernacular.

The manipulation and undermining of the word by those who seek to sew disdain for racial progress, but call themselves Christians, is despicable. 2603:8001:6A01:FA24:1121:1DF0:D88E:9383 (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree, but our personal experiences growing up are not relevant to Wikipedia content. Jibal (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Beats and hippies
I the statement the "woke" movement becomes very similar to the Beat and hippie movements of the mid 20th century, as each pursues higher awareness as WP:OR. Our article is not about a "movement", and the cited source was published in 2004, well before the popularization of "woke" to mean "aware". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Should someone make another article about the movement? Seems pretty relevant! Werner Zagrebbi (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Only if there is significant coverage by reliable sources that actually use "woke" as a descriptor. The only sources I've seen doing so are propaganda or opinion pieces using "woke" as a deliberate insult. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Woke Capitalism definition in the lead
The fact that it is used as a substitute for genuine reform is, by my reading, what the sources say. I definitely don't think we can use the term "virtue signaling" (a pejorative neologism with clear ideological bent) in the article text; it'd be blatant synth anyway without sources using the term, but even if we had such sources it could only be attributed to them, never stated in the article as fact. EDIT: The existing sentence in the lead, The terms woke capitalism and woke-washing have arisen to describe companies who signal support for progressive causes as a substitute for genuine reform, summarizes this sentence in the body, The term woke capitalism was coined by writer Ross Douthat for brands that used politically progressive messaging as a substitute for genuine reform. It's not described as an opinion, either in our article or the source, but as a neutral descriptor of what the term was coined to mean. Meanwhile, "virtue signalling" appears nowhere in the body or the sources and is entirely one editor's WP:OR and personal opinions inserted into the article, using biased, emotive language via a pejorative culture-war neologism, and directly replacing a more neutral summary taken straight from the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

suggested source
— V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 08:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * That's an opinion piece. Can be used only if attributed  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a new article specifically dedicated to "Get woke go broke"?
The phrase is and has been pretty common for a while. It's practically in our lexicon. 2600:1700:13F0:8110:2C67:5BE4:29A9:9E7B (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are phrases not covered in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --09:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The True Origin
The term wasn’t popularized by Black Lives Matter activists. It was originated and popularized by grassroots Ferguson protesters like Darren Seals and Maya Aaten-White. Aaten-White better known as “Spook” is a Howard University graduate and activist who was in her home town covering the protests when she was shot from point blank range by an officer, in the head and miraculously survived. Seals, like many, if not all, of the prominent activists who are native to St. Louis and Ferguson, and we’re on the ground well before BLM got involved, have since died under mysterious circumstances. 2603:8090:900:15F6:E982:A4C3:9943:8D23 (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Woke washing
This term is not defined, even though there is a heading 3 Woke capitalism and woke-washing. Clearly, terms introduced in headings should be defined. 2.69.17.253 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Woke definition
The definition is wrongly perpetuating the idea that the woke movement are champions of injustice. The definition should instead describe their intolerance of free speech, the aggressive bullying of anyone who disagrees with them, including ruining many careers and their support of violence and intimidation in achieving their goals. RealMeaning2021 (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Copy my response from the top: Woke is really hard to define, since it has two concurrent almost opposite definition. We have not done a good job at this. -- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Woke is really hard to define, since it has two concurrent almost opposite definition." -- This is quite false. The word has a meaning, which is about being aware of bigotry and oppression, and it has a usage as a pejorative slur with (intentionally) no well-defined meaning. Jibal (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm meaning to say. Thanks, Jibal. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The "pejorative slur" is quite a correct definition for woke too though. 149.20.252.132 (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a movement define itself? If there are criticisms that is a section that can be added or updated. The definition you propose is your opinion. 100.8.214.31 (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this page is not as a soapbox for these ideologically driven insults and lies about "the woke movement", which is not even the subject of this article. The content of the article reflects reliable sources. Jibal (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

"almost exclusively as a pejorative"
In the body, we state, in Wikipedia's voice, that "By 2021, woke had become used almost exclusively as a pejorative". The source for this is a journalist, who appears not to back up this assertion with any kind of analysis or reference to any studies of the term. We shouldn't be stating a journalist's opinion as fact, in Wikipedia's voice. "almost exclusively" is a very specific claim; if we're to use it, it should be attributed to the person who wrote it, or backed up by at least one source that presents a linguistic analysis of the term's use and reaches the same conclusion. EddieHugh (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As an example of why this "almost exclusively" is just an opinion, here's a May 2021 poll of attitudes towards the term in the UK. Not the same as a study of its use, but 37% of people who were aware of the term said that being woke was a bad thing – this doesn't fit with "almost exclusively". EddieHugh (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @EddieHugh I thought the same when I saw the lede and couldn't agree more, especially as this is putatively a linguistics article. But I'm not aware of any analysis in the academic literature (which if it existed we'd have to wait for secondary and tertiary sources to pick up) so I can only suggest we just soften the statement (without resorting to weasel words) to saying its use as a pejorative has increased (without reference to what's happened to the original usage)—even that is arguably cherry-picking. Llew Mawr (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. I've removed the claim for lack of reliable sources. If someone wants to put it back in as it is, they need to cite reliable leicogrqaphical sources, not opinion writters.  Sparkie82 ( t • c ) 23:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion
The first paragraph defines the term via a direct quotation (assuming conventional use of "...") but does not cite a source.

Neither the author of the piece in which "woke" was used figuratively nor then-contemporary authors can offer insight.

Definitions are the purview of those who coin a word. Given no explicit definition from the time, may I suggest researching what linguists have published?

This thread exists to refine our understanding of the intended (and evolving) meaning of the term from origin through present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.50.205 (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Woke is an English adjective
This is confusing, as it sounds like a dictionary origin discussion, but I can't think I'd anything better.. As it is a word used in political discussion, we should be careful to differentiate between the language and the people. Also is there any evidence that the word is related to awakened or eyes opened? Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022
Woke & Wokeism current Definition : “People today starting in the 2020's who identify as woke see themselves as having been awakened to a new set of ideas, value systems, and knowledge” all based on dubious facts from the left wing media in politics. Has nothing to do with racism like the left in US politics wants people to believe.

Woke Wokeism Definition for the 2020's Republicans Against Trump (talk) 21:49, 20 October 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. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No changes needed only additions - Need a new word added "Wokeism" and Republicans Against Trump (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't use the term wokeism. Please read WP:OR. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

“People today starting in the 2020's who identify as woke see themselves as having been awakened to a new set of ideas, value systems, and knowledge” all based on dubious facts from the left wing media in politics. Has nothing to do with racism like the left in US politics wants people to believe.

Definition of wokeism for 2020's Republicans Against Trump (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What I think should be changed: Definition of woke or wokeism for the 2020's and beyond
 * Why it should be changed: To eliminate any confusions between political parties
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):


 * That Vox article is already cited, and it is about the word woke itself, not people who identify as woke. And it definitely is about race and racism according to the source --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Copy edit
My copyedit and replacement of Criticism with Reactions/Positive/Negative is without changing any content, except usually objectionable "Criticism" headings, which now says Reactions. ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  12:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC) Usually objectionable "Criticism" heading is now replaced with "Reactions", and as any phenomenon having people reacting on it, we have "Positive" and "Negative" response. If I am wrong, or if this case is somehow uniquely different, please "react" here first, before you undo my edit (without explanation).-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  12:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller, of course, reception-rection is pratty standard description of reaction in media, but why not have some distinction pro-contra? (I can't see any TP discussion on the matter, otherwise I would certainly enter a discussion before editing, I am pretty responsive to TP.) ౪ Santa ౪  99°  16:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess that would be ok, just leave reception. Doug Weller  talk 18:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I totally agree on reception, but now that I gave it time to think about the rest, I am not so sure anymore :-), especially using "positive/negative" - it carries to loaded connotations. However, maybe "pro/contra" or "for/against", or some other way to give readers little bit clearer distinction ? ౪ Santa ౪  99°  19:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2022
ADD Weasel word tag to the sentance “ which some commentators have criticised as cultural appropriation.” OR add source OR rewrite OR remove. EphemeralPigeon (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This is explained in the article body. The lead does not require citations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Pejorative section
"Among conservatives, woke has come to be used primarily as an insult" - This sentence implies only conservatives use it as a woke term, when that's obviously not the case. Political party affiliation doesn't determine if someone uses woke as an insult. Could this be modified to something along the lines of "Some individuals, a majority of them in conservative circles", etc. Especially when alot of independents also coin the term (ie. Megyn Kelly. 01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC) 24.156.179.25 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Megyn Kelly may not be a member of a political party, but she is a conservative. Cullen328 (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Bill Maher, John McWorther, there are a lot of self-proclaimed Democrats who use the term exclusively pejoratively (in the U.S.). Outside, like in England, it is used pejoratively by everyone, in my experience, so I get what the person is saying here.--Euor (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I could have also said Tim Pool as well, that's beside the point though. There are alot of moderates and moderate Democrats that have used the word as well, to say only conservatives use it that way is intentionally misleading and divisive. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * still apparently hasn't read WP:NOR. Trivial usage by self-described "moderates" and/or "Democrats" is irrelevant without independent RS coverage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not conducting research here, only stating my opinion that there seems to be a disconnect between the contents of this article and the outside world, especially the world outside America. And I am very aware that this opinion is only an opinion, not a statement of fact. 'Woke' is in itself an American phenomenon in origins, as evident by debates in France, Britain and elsewhere where it is often critiqued as such. I am fully aware there needs to be proper sources (although I am sure some would argue there might be a dearth of academic sources with a critical lens as some of the whole culture-war-thingy appears to also include a criticism of the spread of postmodernism in academia itself). But there is no shortage of books being published using the term pejoratively, not only by Fox News pundits, such as John McWhorter's book Woke Racism, which surely would be of some interest if only for his assessment linguistically of the shift in meaning over time, or satire like Titania McGrath's Woke: A Guide to Social Justice, written by a self-declared Corbynite. I even think Obama's pejorative use is notable, although it is only anecdotally so. But I am not editing the article since I don't think I can add anything of use personally -- I'm not that knowledgeable about the whole debate, and realize I am only providing anecdotal examples. My only point in commenting on this page was to voice an impression that it seemed America-centric and I suppose slightly archaic in light of contemporary use, so I would love to see serious, independent RS coverage to explore aspects of the concept of 'woke' that is not covered adequately here (IMO). Again, just to state it, I do appreciate you keeping a watch on the article, since it must be a prime target of angry partisans.--Euor (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a comment for : I've looked at the recent edits you've made and I think they are very good!; you found a way to make just a few tweaks in the lede and elsewhere and make it seem a lot more "wide". Changing simply "meaning" --> "originating in AAVE meaning" was astute and a lot more precise, I think. Well done!--Euor (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Soundbites in Pejorative use section
Recent contributions of isolated uses of "woke" as a pejorative—from third-party sources that don't explicitly call it pejorative—seem to be creating a disproportionate focus in the article on snappy soundbites that don't reflect accepted knowledge about the term "woke". Not every politician or pundit who calls something "woke" needs to be mentioned in the encyclopedia. I suggest removing most of the material under "Canada" and "Oceania" absent sources that actually focus on the term "woke" itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Possible COPYLINK vio
The citation to links to a YouTube channel called "SmithsonianFolkwaysRecordings", with no information about the publisher other than that the channel was created in June 2014. All their videos are Lead Belly recordings. The official Smithsonian Folkways channel is @SmithsonianFolkways, created in 2008. Seems fishy, so unless anyone has any more info I'll remove the link for copyright. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

✅. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Scottsboro Boys
That song being "Scottsboro Boys" by Lead Belly - but as you can hear here: - the term "woke" is actually being used in an interview about the song. Rewording for clarity may be required. 220.235.231.146 (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Wrong Article linked
In "As a Pejorative - Europe" the wrong article is linked for Balázs Orbán. Instead it directs to the article about the writer of the same name. OrdinaryComix (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)