Jump to content

Talk:Woke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sychonic (talk | contribs) at 01:35, 17 July 2022 (Undid revision 1098583636 by Dronebogus (talk)this the talk page where one can express an opinion as to things that can make an article better. I did that and did not engage in any personal insults but rather incisive descriptive language. That you don’t like it should be remedied by explaining how I might be wrong, not undoing my talk page critique. Your “pass” is not required.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

[citation needed] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
That's what I'm meaning to say. Thanks, Jibal. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Noted, correction made. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beats and hippies

I removed 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)[reply]

Should someone make another article about the movement? Seems pretty relevant! Werner Zagrebbi (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Woefully poor article on Wokepedia

For starters, the first two paragraphs, not short ones, have no footnotes, no sources even though the very first sentence involves a quotation. In the past five years the term has evolved, or devolved, from some some pallid leftist term for getting offended by everything to a now contemptible term meaning getting offended by everything. It is still changing as I now see it being dismissed as comically foolishness for getting offended at everything. The article needs a good deal of work to reflect the reality, but since Wikipedia itself in its vanishing credibility is far to woke itself to allow the article to be changed to make it accurate. It’s unlikely to happen. They don’t call it Wokepedia for nothing. Sychonic (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]