Talk:Woke

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 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Watkina, Abamzai, Ujwalamurthy.

Woke Real History, American Indians

WP:NOTAFORUM --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Woke "theallage" has racially excluded the HOLOCAUST against American Indians. They were the first humans inslaved under what became the United States of America. Racism in the United States began in the northern state of massachuseis against American Indians with it's law, The American Indian Imprisonment Act. That law was still on state law books till 2004, it was the blueprint for Jim Crow Laws across the United States. State governments registered Indian babies race as Black on their birth record to lower the state's Indian race population. No Indian was allowed inside any city after dark or they could be lynched or imprisoned for life. Before during and after the US Civil War the Federal Government continued it's Holocaust against American Indians with it's Manafest Destenie Holocaust campaign. An all Black Army Unit was first to arrive on what's known as Wounded Knee Massacre Site today, they supplyed the 7TH-Cav with hichcock guns used to bring about the massacre of Indian men women and children. American Indian imprisonment Act reference. Click on Laws against Indians www.UnitedNativeAmerica.com UnitedNatives (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

A fair bit of text has been recently added referencing various opinion commentators (e.g. Kenya Hunt, Chitra Ramaswamy, Owen Jones, Steve Rose, Evan Smith, Kenan Malik) and newsworthy, if rather trivial, usages of the term "woke" in the media. While many of the people mentioned are notable individuals in their own right, I'm not aware of any of them being considered subject-matter experts in politics, civil rights, or the English language. Most are simply pundits whose careers depend on their ability to deliver spicy takes, resulting in disproportionate media coverage of current controversies. I think this material should be pared down subtantially, at least by getting rid of the opinions that aren't mentioned in a reliable, secondary source as well as news stories where the term or concept of "woke(ness)" isn't the main topic. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

While I certainly think that using subject-matter experts should take primacy, there is value in including a selection of quotations and points by opinion commentators because they reflect how the term "woke" is being used. We are nowhere near reaching a point where the article is breaching WP:Article Length, so there is room for such additions, although of course they should be used judiciously. If there are specific instances where you think that the additions are unnecessary, I'd be happy to discuss their alteration/removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Italics

Is there any good reason why the word "woke" is italicised in the title, and the opening text? This seems to contravene MOS:ITALICTITLE. Unless there is a good reason for it, I suggest that the italic styling be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:WORDSASWORDS. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

That style guidance seems odd to me, but if it is applied to this article it should surely be applied consistently. There are numerous examples in the article of using the word "woke", with inverted commas, rather than italics. How is that justified? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone has tried to justify it. But there's an easy solution. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The common sense solution would be to remove the italics - which, whatever the guidance might say, seem bizarre - rather than changing the inverted commas. Italics are normally used for works of art, not words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

A number of style guides, including Chicago and APA, prescribe italics for this purpose. I don't see anything bizarre about it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

What seems odd and unexpected to me is not so much the variation of use within the article, as its use in the article title. The article is, now, only partly about the word per se, and more about the actual phenomenon that it describes. On that basis, I think its use in the article title should be reconsidered. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

In that case, the topic would be wokeness, not woke. Both are non-neutral terms, and the word woke seems to be a good umbrella term for the purported "phenomenon". I disagree that the article isn't mainly about the word, and I think italics in the title do a good job of setting it apart from its usual grammatical function as a past participle of wake, which would itself be confusing as an article title. Compare with Gay. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

[By whom?] tag in reference to Badu tweet

Whoever placed the by whom tag there didn’t bother to investigate citation 23 just before the “has been cited” claim. Someone should put another citation tag to the same article cited by tag 23 right after the claim so this is clear. 73.69.251.97 (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)