Talk:Woke

"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)

Thoughts on the article

I think there is a certain disconnect between this article, and the term and phenomena as it exists in the world at the moment (and which has been so for quite a while). I see this strongly outside the United States, not being American myself, but also when I am looking _in_. This article, it seems, started off based on the adjective woke, discussing it as a term, using its original orthodox meaning. The current situation, it seems, is rather about a claimed phenomenon of "wokeness" or "wokery" or some "awokening" - all terms I've seen used often - that many cultural critics perceive and debate in society, both in and outside the United States. As such the article seems to miss the mark. This debate and criticism, I suppose occurring partially within the so-called "culture war" (I shudder at the term), is also not restricted to the right side of politics. I am aware the right side of politics in the Anglosphere (and countries like Italy, etc.) have declared some "anti-woke" crusade for political purposes, but criticism of alleged "wokeness" in and of itself doesn't appear to be restricted to party lines. Outside the United States, criticism seems fairly ubiquitous on both mainstream left and right, while also within the United States, the criticism of perceived "wokeness" occurs on the Left as well (take, say, self-proclaimed leftist Bill Maher's non-stop complaints about wokeness, or (also claimed Democrat) John McWhorter's criticism that includes a book on an alleged "Woke Religion"). In short, I think the article fails to capture that the term has morphed into a pretty strong debate about a cultural trend or mentality or phenomenon, and that this is its primary common usage today. I would have loved an article managing to discuss this and pin it down a bit, since I think we all have noticed how the term "woke" has become an extremely elastic and vague term. Also because it seems to be extremely central to understanding many of the deeper cultural debates going on today. Thoughts? Euor (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the current situation, but for our purposes, the only relevant thing is what is published in reliable sources. Cultural critics are a dime a dozen, and culture-warrior debate and criticism from the usual places (op-eds, blogs, etc.) is generally not enough to satisfy due weight requirements. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

By current situation, I mean that the debate changes. And nothing has apparently changed as fast in the public debate as the term woke. This is recognized in the article, by stating further down that it has become almost solely used pejoratively at the moment. Absolutely agree cultural critics are a dime a dozen, and not something to build a Wiki on, but this appears to be a deep, crucial debate going on in America today. Or to put it another way, the idea or definition or concept of "woke" is in many ways at the center of the entire cultural conflict and divide at the moment, variously symbolizing (to left or right) identity politics, racial reckoning, critical theory, overly performative actions, etc. In some areas it has basically just annexed the term "political correctness". My whole point is that I don't personally think the article (at least the lede) reflects the contentiousness at the moment. Just watching the TV earlier, I noted how Van Jones also used the term woke casually (and negatively) as meaning a certain mentality or philosophy; his use was definitely not meant as "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination", as the article opens up with. Rather it was in the sort of negative sense that President Obama famously used a while back (which I know has been subject to some discussion here previously). I suppose one of the issues is that the academic literature (or academia more broadly) is a lot slower to react than the dynamic public debate, and I also have to admit I harbor a suspicion that there exists a disconnect between academic use and popular use (the academic one remaining of the orthodox sense used primarily here, but which has become outdated by popular standards). In that sense, we are stuck with a situation where the best sources (scholarly literature) might least represent what most Wikipedia readers themselves know and detect from the popular debate and pop culture. I think an example of the disconnect I am getting at, is the same reason this article has been tagged with a "globalize" template. As mentioned, mainstream European and non-American Anglosphere associations and definitions of "woke"—what it means and what it represents—is not aligned with the article. Perhaps I am mistaken though, it is hard to stay grounded and on top of everything nowadays.--Euor (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source. Any political public debate is irrelevant without a published, reliable source commenting on it. What WP users know and detect from watching the TV etc. doesn't count – please read No original research. --22:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 12:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC))

I do not think I have insinuated that Wikipedia is a news source. However, it is apparent from news media and published sources that there is a disconnect between this article and the debate, both within and outside academia. I understand you might be impatient in relation to this article, because I am sure it attracts culture-warriors by the dozens, and you appear to be the one swatting them away. I applaud you for trying to keep Wikipedia neutral and on the facts. All I am saying is that my impression is that this article has flaws, such as in not representing the contentiousness and pretty established disputes out there. The fact that it has a big banner criticizing it as U.S.-centric points to as much.--Euor (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Any political public debate is irrelevant without a published, reliable source commenting on it. What WP users know and detect from watching the TV etc. doesn't count – please read No original research. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 12:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC))

I am curious, do you think it could be an idea to have an article on the idea of "wokeism", i.e. the perceived ideology that is fairly contentious nowadays, while this article covers the term woke itself, from which "wokeism" is derived?--Euor (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NOR yet? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:25, 17 October 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[@-@]b (talk) 22:39, 3 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 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)

 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.

• 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):

Definition of wokeism for 2020's Republicans Against Trump (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

References

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)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} 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)

Euor 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 Sangdeboeuf, since it must be a prime target of angry partisans.--Euor (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment for Sangdeboeuf: 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)

Indeed. While I'm not going to spend my own time finding articles that talk about non-conservative people who use 'woke' pejoratively, I can say that some people tend to not do the proper, balanced research themselves, keeping sites like this in a perpetual state of divisiveness on behalf of liberals/leftists. They'll conveniently ignore the fact not everything is black & white, and just stick with using the go-to left-leaning sources instead of finding articles that do challenge the status quo, even if they may be more difficult to find. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality

From the topic sentence, this article clearly favors extreme 'woke' people's own definition of the word 'woke'. The more common usage of this word is to describe people that have extreme left-wing views on culture and the correctness of societal organization. This article describes this word when used with that meaning as a 'pejorative', and in using that word specifically, editors (and perhaps overarching moderators) have broken the supposed neutral tone of the article. 'woke' may have a generally negative connotation, but that in itself does not make the word a pejorative. I realize that this comment is quite similar to the one made by Euor, and I share the belief that there is a serious disconnect between how the term 'woke' is described here and how it is most nearly always used in real life debates. Moderators need not be blinded by their ideals when their most "reliable sources" do not publish the most correct information in regards to how 'woke' is most commonly used in the modern-day vernacular of different countries, not how it was used by a certain racial group centuries ago. MITG260 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As I stated to Euor above, any public debate is irrelevant without a published, reliable source commenting on it. Wikipedia exists to summarize independent, reliable sources. Users' own interpretation of how the term is used in real life debates doesn't count. This is part and parcel of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you want to change this or Wikipedia's Verifiability and No original research policies, the place to do that is at WP:VPP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@MITG260 There are no moderators. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, by 'moderators' I meant 'administrators'. MITG260 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@MITG260 Except for deleting copyvio, BLP violations perhaps, etc we don't deal with content. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)