Jump to content

Talk:Cancel culture/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

"Prominent examples"?

Having "examples" of a slippery rhetorical term that is slung about every which way is naturally going to be a ... fraught enterprise, but assuming that we do want a section of them, is Donald McNeil Jr. really a "prominent" one? He's not even the primary focus or highest-profile individual mentioned in the cited source. And in the ~2 months since he blogged his side of the story (the Guardian story that Wtmitchell found was from 1 March), he was eclipsed by the "cancellation" of Dr. Seuss, which has in turn been supplanted by ... Sharon Osbourne leaving The Talk, it seems. XOR'easter (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

This kind of issue will always persist with an examples section as has been previously discussed on this page before, —PaleoNeonate – 11:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, an examples section seems like a bad idea, on balance. What standard of inclusion must be met? With a term thrown about for rhetorical effect so casually, what keeps the "examples" section from becoming a pile of trivia? If the kind of analysis that we summarize in the other section itself cites examples, then we can include those in our summary of that analysis. Otherwise, we're being TV Trope-ish, rather than encyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The examples don't have to have their own section, but I do not agree with not having any examples. Sources mention them and so should we. And the article should not even implicitly support a POV that it never happens or is always deserved and the like, nor the reverse. Crossroads -talk- 19:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC) clarified Crossroads -talk- 19:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads, the problem is as noted above. Right-wing sources scream "cancel culture" when massively syndicated people with huge platforms and unfettered access to social media are criticised, while ignoring the right's long and ongoing history of trying to cancel everything except heterosexual white conservative Christianity. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
That's true, but the answer is to exclude examples that are only called such by right-wing pundits, and to stick to what neutral sources call examples. Crossroads -talk- 19:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd hazard a guess that the best solution would be to incorporate examples where they naturally fit into the flow of the analysis, using those examples that are invoked by the analyses we summarize. Examples are good, potentially; a separate section is a weaker structure. XOR'easter (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, but I just removed the one "prominent example" because the source doesn't call it a prominent example, it just highlights an obvious error (we can all write critique of the most anodyne policy by citing cases where it is wrongly applied). An examples section either needs to include the origination of cancel culture in the conservative Christian right, and its transition into the hands of its original intended victims, or it needs not to be there at all. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

What word?

Thanks to @Crossroads for this reversion. I think I saw the addition here during a WP:Huggle session and it struck me that "the word" was unclear. I probably intended to add a {{what}} tag with the reverted text as a reason= argument and screwed that up. I'm guessing that I was interrupted while doing that and mistakenly saved the half-thought-out edit. After looking back at this I've changed "saying the word" to "saying an unacceptable word", which I think is clearer about not being clear. Revert or otherwise improve as needed, please. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Origins addition

I'd like to propose that the #CancelColbert twitter campaign in 2014 [1] was a significant contribution to the inception of cancel culture as it is discussed today. I would motion for either inclusion in the Origins section or a discussion as to why it should or should not be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.190.194 (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-campaign-to-cancel-colbert

Proposed merge of Consequence culture into Cancel culture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus seems to favor merge and redirect. Sources cited show these are two terms that describe the same social phenomenon, but carrying negative vs. positive connotations, and there was lack of support for "consequence culture" being notable enough for its own article. -- Beland (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

As the sources for "consequence culture" show, it's another term for the same phenomenon. We don't do WP:POVFORKs for different terms for the same thing. Crossroads -talk- 19:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, seems fair. LeVar Burton was saying the same thing today. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The article actually states they are separate concepts, with sources for different definitions. Cancel culture focusses on the *effects of cancelling opinions*, where those opinions deviate from an established/supposed norm - with the effect that debate is restricted and doesn't happen. Consequence culture simply states that people posting comments should be held responsible for them, that there is consequences: "consequence culture, where when you make a mistake—and we all do, by the way—there should be consequences". Levar Burton conflates the too, from his viewpoint, but IMHO he appears to be trying to rename one concept with the name for a different concept, in order to change the meaning/put a spin on the original meaning. I think his opinion certainly isn't the only one on the matter.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The article contains this exchange:
Right. Nowadays there’s something called canceled culture. Does that actually exist?
No, it does not. Cancel culture is this boogeyman that people have come up with to explain away bad behavior and when their faves experience consequences. I like to think of it as consequence culture...
If cancel culture does not exist, why does it need another name? And why does this exchange merit a wikipedia article? The fact that there are people trying to re-label 'cancel culture' as 'consequence culture' demonstrates the bankruptcy of the position that there is nothing to see here. The only question is what the name of the phenomenon should be. The answer is 'cancel culture' because 'consequence culture' is
1. Vague to the point of parody
2. Used far less frequently
3. Described as 'a belief that people should be held responsible for mistakes', which (a) is a belief, not a culture and (b) excludes actions that are not mistakes, which is a good deal of them. LastDodo (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
However, the fact remains that the cited supporting source ([1]) does report that 53% opinion percentage that people should expect social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public. WP articles are supposed to give due weight to reliable secondary sources and no weight to opinions of unreliable sources such as individual WP editors. Re the merger proposal, it seems to me that "cancellation" would be one of (presumably) several possible consequences in a consequence culture. Presuming more than this one isolated example to support that, perhaps the article should be about Consequence Culture, with Cancellation perhaps being a section and, probably, Cancel Culture being a redirect to that article section. In this case, though, it would seem that WP:COMMONNAME mandates otherwise. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, consequence culture is not about unpopular opinions. It's about obnoxious opinions. Opinions and actions that dehumanize people based on prejudice.
Of course much of the framing comes from the christian right, who invented this weapon and are thoroughly pissed that its intended victims are turning it on them. It's fine to cancel gay weddings, women who want birth control, the entire religion of Islam, even Shigeru Miyamoto's first console-only game. But if you call out racists, transphobes, homophobes or any other kind of white christian bigot? Well, that's cancel culture. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The WP:LEADSENTENCE introducing the article on Consequence culture says that is, "the cultural belief, that in a society, when somebody makes a mistake, there should be consequences.", citing [2]. I heard Tammy Bruce say on Fox News tonight that some people in the U.S. refrain from committing crimes because of the consequence of going to jail (which seems to be not so true in the U.S. lately). I suspect that some people refrain from burning American flags in some venues, even though the U.S. constitution restrains the government from imposing consequences on that expressive act, because of the possible consequence of being hit over the head with an axe handle. I think those are examples of consequence culture in operation. I suspect that consequence culture in general goes beyond and predates the Christian Right in the U.S. and that citeable sources exist supporting that. Also, I have not called out racists, transphobes, homophobes or any other kind of white christian bigot as you assert above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I suspect it goes back a few tens of millions of years to the earliest social primates. Earlier you said 'Re the merger proposal, it seems to me that "cancellation" would be one of (presumably) several possible consequences in a consequence culture.' Yet this is just another problem with the term. There is only one type of consequence that 'consequence culture' refers to - being what is called 'cancelled'. We are not talking about a culture of rewarding people for what they say.LastDodo (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, that reads like weasel words to me. Consequence culture isn't about mistakes, it's about assholes. Harvey Weinstein didn't make a "mistake" when he raped dozens of women over whom he had immense power. I don't think it's a "mistake" when Tucker Carlson repeats a white nationalist talking point, or Jordan Peterson spouts some misogynist nonsense.
The interesting part for me is the crossover between the unreconstructed, who carry forward 1950s mores around sex and race, and the "new assholes" who have decided to defiantly reject societal norms and adopt racism and misogyny de novo - the incels and Proud Boys for example. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Overall, I agree with you. I don't think this is the place to discuss the current shortcomings of the Consequence culture article, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Two entirely different concepts. Regardless of the state of the individual articles, being held accountable for your actions is far different than being ostracized. — Ched (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    The sources show that they are different framings/interpretations of the same social phenomena. We go by the sources already being used, which are very clear on this. [3][4][5] Claims based on OR and fallacious appeals to definition aren't valid grounds. Crossroads -talk- 04:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support and Propose Consequence culture is a stub and it is likely going to be get deleted for failure on WP:NOTABILITY. My proposal is to delete that small article and add to this page something along the lines of: "Sunny Hostin and LeVar Burton have argued that cancel culture should be rebranded as "consequence culture"." Maybe a little more than that. I think it helps to think of the reader. What would a well-intentioned person coming to wikipedia to understand something need to hear? Not people showing up to see if their side won a debate, but people who just want to understand something. An honest explanation of "consequence culture" would start with "Well, you know that whole whole cancel culture thing..." So until Burton and Hostin succeed in rebranding cancel culture, we should put their idea here on this page for now. They ARE reacting to cancel culture, as all the sources on that page clearly state. Namaste DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Please, a bit of common sense here. Hostin and Levar Burton are endeavouring to rename the concept of "cancel culture" in order to change its meaning - the original focus of cancel culture is on the restrctive effect of being "cancelled" (via ostricisation) - and its effect on free speech. Consequence culture is focussed on there being consequence to what people do, and their action. These are NOT in any way, synonyms, a big difference for meaning and context. Hostin and Burton may have personal opinions that cancel culture should be re-branded, but that doesn't make them right, and they are not - two different concepts with different foci. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    Deathlibrarian, no, not change, clarify. What the right means when it talks about cancel culture, is consequence culture. What Black people meant when they coined the term, was actual cancel culture, where entire races, religions, genders and so on are cancelled by white Christians. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
(comment unrelated to the topic of this section) It seems as if you are saying that the topic of this article includes usages other than the usage currently focused on by the article. That suggests to me that the article ought either to be broadened to also cover those alternative usages or re-named to reflect its limited coverage. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • DolyaIskrina If you want to think of the reader, you would leave a separate entry where people searching for it, can easily find it, rather than remove it and bury it somewhere else. Having a reference to it here, as well as being able to be easily found with its own article, is the easiest for the user. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    We don't decide article coverage based on personal ideas of how best to get reader attention. It's about WP:Notability and avoiding a WP:POVFORK, which is not satisfied here. I think it's actually less visible as a separate article under an uncommon term. Your oppose statement is also contradictory - you admit that the term is a renaming of cancel culture, but then suggest without evidence that it is somehow a totally different thing. Crossroads -talk- 04:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    Also noting for the closer that Deathlibrarian is the creator of the Consequence culture article. Crossroads -talk- 05:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I wasn't saying we should decide to keep the article solely based on the fact its easier for the reader to find, its certainly not the basis of my argument, but putting all that aside, we should try to make life easier for our users if we can, shouldn't we? As opposed to burying it in another article? (and yes apologies, I should have mentioned I was the creator of the article, thanks for pointing that out). As for the renaming, I said Levar Burton *would like* to re-name cancel culture as consequence culture for his personal reasons, but that the renaming didn't make sense because they are different concepts, not synonyms. From our Wikipedian POV they are different concepts so need separate entries Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per my comments above.WP:Globalize this article or rename it Cancel culture in the United States Fix and expand the Consequence culture article, make Social cancellation a section there as one possible consequence, with this article as a WP:SS detail article linked from there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    You asserted earlier, "I think those are examples of consequence culture in operation. I suspect that consequence culture in general goes beyond and predates the Christian Right in the U.S. and that citeable sources exist supporting that." Care to share any with us? I looked and could not find anything. This is a very recent neologism. Also, this is mostly a US phenomenon; there is nothing to globalize it with, and we already cite the BBC. "Cancel culture in the United States" makes no sense as a title unless it is a spinoff of a general article, but this is the general article. Lastly, the idea that this is a subset of consequence culture is original research. Crossroads -talk- 04:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources showing they are two terms/framings for the same phenomenon

I didn't think I'd have to spell this out, but here we go:

  • Mother Jones (magazine): Nowadays there’s something called canceled culture. Does that actually exist? [Interviewee:] No, it does not. Cancel culture is this boogeyman that people have come up with to explain away bad behavior and when their faves experience consequences. I like to think of it as consequence culture, where when you make a mistake—and we all do, by the way—there should be consequences. The problem is that we haven’t figured out what consequences should be. So it’s all or nothing. Either there are no consequences, or people lose their jobs, or other sort of sweeping grand gestures that don’t actually solve the problem at hand. (This is the source for the very definition at Consequence culture.)[6]
  • FaithWire (never heard of this source, seems dubious, but it's being used at the article): Then it was [The View's] Hostin’s turn to respond. The co-host said she has “an issue” with the phrase “cancel culture.” She went on to explain she thinks it should be called “consequence culture” because people deserve to be pushed out of society for their “bad behavior.” Hostin stood completely alone in her embrace of cancel culture. [7]
  • Newsweek: LeVar Burton defended cancel culture on Monday, saying the term is a misnomer and should be replaced with "consequence culture." "In terms of cancel culture, I think it's misnamed, that's a misnomer. I think we have a consequence culture and that consequences are finally encompassing everybody in the society," Burton told The View's Meghan McCain. "Whereas they haven't been, ever, in this country." [8]
  • Salon: Burton said that he thinks the term "cancel-culture" is misnamed. "I think we have a consequence culture. And that consequences are finally encompassing everybody in the society, whereas they haven't been ever in this country." He argued that cancel culture is actually good because it helps hold people accountable, which helps shift and progress culture forward. [9]
  • Pitt News opinion piece: These figures have not been unreasonably canceled — they’re just facing, perhaps for the first time in their lives, the consequences of their actions. [10]

All the other sources I could find were more punditry and/or more coverage of The View (talk show), especially regarding LeVar Burton. This concept does not even pass WP:GNG - legitimate sources covering it are just coverage of the same comments from a talk show, very much WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEO - and I should have taken it to AfD. It is clear that what miniscule sourcing does exist on it either explicitly says it's the same thing; the one exception, the Mother Jones interview, while the interviewee claims it is distinct, she states "I like to think of it as consequence culture" (emphasis added); she is clearly referring to the same phenomenon that people who use the term "cancel culture" are referring to, but arguing that is a poor term.

Assertions above that it is a totally separate concept are completely unsourced and original research. Crossroads -talk- 04:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought it was pretty obvious, the quotes you are using are particular viewpoints, from one side of the view, somehow trying to redefine the concept of Cancel culture as a separate concept, consequence culture. On the one hand they state they are the same, but at the same time they define the term differently to how cancel culture is defined... so they *can't* be synonyms. Most of these are defining Consequence culture - but the definitions we already source for cancel culture provide a different definition for that concept. So the definitions for cancel culture, we use in this wiki article, present a different concept to consequence culture as you have defined it above. Ultimately, we have two different definitions, with references, for two separate concepts.
* Cancel culture has been described by media studies scholar Eve Ng as "a collective of typically marginalized voices 'calling out' and emphatically expressing their censure of a powerful figure." Ng, Eve (July 26, 2020). "No Grand Pronouncements Here...: Reflections on Cancel Culture and Digital Media Participation". Television and New Media. 21 (16): 621–627. doi:10.1177/1527476420918828. S2CID 220853829. Retrieved February 12, 2021.
* Dictionary.com, defines cancel culture as "withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive.""[1]Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Your argument here is pure WP:Original research. All that matters is how sources treat the topic of "consequence culture", and they show it is different framings (descriptions, definitions, whatever) of the same phenomenon, as I have repeatedly said. Crossroads -talk- 19:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The definitions in the two articles for the different concepts are different - that's not WP:Original research - that's just obvious! Wouldn't you say those sources you quote are all from one particular viewpoint? Thus the argument you propose seems to be pushing one particular viewpoint and conflicts with WP:BIAS Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Different definitions for the same phenomenon, as the sources show by treating them together as the same topic and explicitly saying they are the same. Crossroads -talk- 05:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "What Does Cancel Culture Mean?". dictionary.com. Retrieved 2020-08-19.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cancellation via DoJ

Is Nunes' attempot to silence Twitter trolls cancellation? It seems he abused the DoJ to make it happen:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.207.13.39 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

None of the cited sources mention the phrase "cancel culture", and it seems like a stretch to describe this behavior as social ostracism. -- Beland (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Consequence culture into Cancel culture (revisited)

I was very suprised to see that Beland has merged these two article, and I would ask for the decision to be reviewed. The view that consequence culture is the same as cancel culture is very much the view made by certain media commentators, and its a particular viewpoint- its a left wing, progressive view, perhaps popular with African American commentators. Not that I personally think that's wrong, but Wikipedia should be impartial. Secondly there were three editors here arguing quite strongly against one editor who wanted the merge. I'm a bit suprised to be honest, I assumed it wasn't going to be merged and that the discussion was finalised. (note I'm not actually American, but from an outsiders view, the view that Consequence culture is the same as cancel culture IMHO is a new alternative view, and definitely not a majority view, or the view of the mainstream. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: Since you asked on my talk page for me to reconsider this closure, I took a second look at it. I didn't come to a different conclusion, but I can explain my reasoning in more detail if others want to reconsider it as well.
I count four editors in favor of merging and three editors opposed, though in some cases editors made points which seemed to support the opposite opinion, and not everyone gave a crisp bolded voting phrase. But Wikipedia discussions are not a vote, and I look to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and evidence and reasons provided when assessing the outcome of the discussion. Yes, calling this "cancel culture" is either neutral or favored by right-leaning commentators and may imply that the ostracism is unjustified; and "consequence culture" has been proposed by left-leaning commentators and was coined because it implies that the ostracism is justified. (Though to be fair groups like "left", "right", and "African American" are way too big to have homogeneous opinions, and it makes me a bit uncomforable to generalize. And lots of commentators point out that both left-leaning and right-leaning folks have behavior they think deserves ostracism and behavior they will defend as free speech that should not be punished. And they disagree a lot when behavior involves culture war issues but I hope for humanity's sake they actually agree on more than you'd think just reading news reports on cancel culture. Anyway!) As mentioned in the discussion, using the title "Cancel culture" might favor a right-leaning viewpoint, but it is also by far the most common name. Using a non-neutral title in these circumstances is supported by Wikipeida policy - WP:POVNAME. The merged article attributes the name "consequence culture" to specific commentators and explains their perspective, which seems like the right way to follow WP:NPOV; it is certainly not presented as a mainstream view. In fact, it was pointed out that "consequence culture" might not be notable enough to justify its own article, in which case it would almost certainly end up merged and redirected to this article anyway.
Regarding your assertion that these are two different similar but unrelated things, that is contradicted by the cited sources, some of which explicitly say that what certain commentators call "consequence culture" is called by others "cancel culture". In at least one case a commentator denies that "cancel culture" is really a thing and says that what we have is actually "consequence culture". I have to apply some common sense interpretation here, and take "cancel culture" to mean "unjustified ostracism" and "consequence culture" to mean "justified ostracism". So what they are saying is that right-wing commentators say that the left engages in lots of unjustified ostracism whereas they believe it is justified ostracism. If that nuance is important to the article, more detail can be added on that point. The scope of the article is this phenomenon of social ostracism. It does not take a point of view on whether or not any given example or all such examples of such ostracism is justified or unjustified; it's just explaining that people are arguing about those things, including arguing about what to terminology to use. Personally, I don't see how readers would be served by having separate articles for justified and unjustified social ostracism, though different ways to split up the topic were proposed in the discussion and may be useful in the future. Keep in mind Wikipedia sometimes combines articles about related topics even if they are not exactly the same thing, if the amount of text devoted to one or both is small, just to make navigation easier and reduce overlap. So if there is to be a spinoff article specifically for cancel culture in the United States or specifically for say, a movement to rename "cancel culture" to "consequence culture", you might expect most editors to object unless a considerably longer span of text has been written about it, in addition to satisfying notability concerns. -- Beland (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Beland Thanks you very much for your measured and in depth response. I agree with some of it, but not all of it, but there's probably not much point in continuing the discussion, and no doubt wasting both our time in an endless political debate! But I do appreciate the fact you looked at this a second time and gave it some thorough consideration, that at least puts me at ease that you considered it carefully before making the decision. Cheers, and I appreciate the response. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


The first sentence of this article lacks clarity, and I think a broad understanding of this concept has congealed - and Merriam Webster has yet to catch up. "To cancel" as I currently understand it means something like "to incite broad online ostracism against a target to impose accountability for a single action by that target." Often (but not always) the action in question is a statement that broadly perceived as intolerant of a minority group. Often (but not always) those seeking accountability act like a mob. Typically the collective outrage is brief but extremely intense. (I would include literary antecedents such as Orwell's concept of Two Mintues' Hate.) (This article, I submit, is inaccurate when it states that cancellation may "be online, on social media, or in person." No one is "cancelled" in person.)

Cancel CULTURE is a phrase that is used to describe the increasing commonality of cancellations.

Cancel culture has become a political buzzword in the United States. For that reason, I oppose merging it with "consequence culture." Broadly, I perceive more cancellations are carried out by those on the political left against those on the political right. Those on the political right have "weaponized" the phrase as a pejorative, as in, "we must fight cancel culture." The article does not effectively describe this phrase as it is currently used (2021). Zorbatic (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Zorbatic

Oh, I disagree that people can only be 'cancelled' online/in social media. I contend that every online/virtual phenomena has a real life counterpart. Example case: 1966, John Lennon says to an interviewer, "I mean, look at us, we're more popular than Jesus now." Nearly immediately, the KKK and friends were organising mass bonfires in the American South for everyone to burn their Beatles records in, &c &c &c... 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A069:2944:4900:B67E (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fair point. The album-burning protests against the Beatles and, more recently, against the Dixie Chicks, were both disproportionate reactions to stray statements by a member of the band that caused widespread offense to members of particular minority groups. The phenomenon of shunning isn't new, and it can happen online as well as off. However, the term "cancel culture" is new. And IMHO the term is primarily used to describe the peculiar new power of an online mob to demand, for example, that a person be fired from their job (e.g. Alexi McCammond, Gina Carano, James Bennet), or disinvited from an event (e.g. Prof. Dorian Abbot, Kevin Hart) for statements deemed insensitive. The people who demand cancellation under this definition of cancel culture rarely do more than sign a petition or post on social media about it. (E.g. Netflix employees outraged over Dave Chappelle's recent comedy special The Closer (Oct 2021) scheduled a mass walkout, where supposedly 1,000 Netflix employees planned to protest. Only about 65 actually walked out.) Zorbatic (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Spiral of Silence

I want to add Spiral of silence to the See Also section? Anyone agree with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.203.46 (talk • contribs)

Sounds fine to me. Crossroads -talk- 04:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2021

Refers to section: "American public opinion"

The Wiki text states: "However, a majority (53%) believed that people should expect social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public, especially those that may be construed as deeply offensive to other people"

Citing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture#cite_ref-47

Which source is "A National Tracking Poll" published by Politico.

I am of the opinion it has been imprecisely quoted here, the exact quote from the poll (Question POL21):

"Even though free speech is protected, people should expect social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public, even those that are deeply offensive to other people" (53% of voters agreed with this statement)

The meaning is apparently similar, but the tone slightly altered for the second part of the question. I somehow wonder about the poll's choice of words here, too, and it appears the Wiki article does better capture the meaning, but the phrasing is actually the opposite "even if offensive" (poll) vs "especially if construed as offensive" (wiki) Swielgoss (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I made this change to address this. Thanks. Crossroads -talk- 04:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Um

What does necklacing have to do with cancel culture, are you kidding me? Who wrote this? 😂 45.50.132.227 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Daveout(talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead should describe this as a pejorative term.

The lead of the article says that Cancel culture or call-out culture is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person. But that doesn't reflect the body, which largely treats the topic as a term. eg. the Origins section tracks the usage of the term and a phrase; likewise, much of the reactions section covers it. Furthermore, as a term (as the controversy section shows) it is controversial - describing it as a factual phenomenon in the lead misrepresents the sources, which largely address it or use it as a pejorative term rather than treating it as a neutral descriptor of a phenomenon. --Aquillion (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with this summary of the article or of the sources. While it is true that some of the article is about it as a term - true of many articles about real topics which have an etymology section - and that some sources dispute its existence, that does not seem to apply to the majority. And many of the sources which are critical of the concept in some way do not go so far as to deny it is a real thing entirely - for example many emphasize its occurrence on the political right, or say that cancellation often does not result in serious long-term consequences, or just outright say it is deserved accountability and/or free speech when it occurs. In other words, they consider there to be such a real phenomenon here but disagree with certain aspects of the stereotypical picture. Crossroads -talk- 06:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
You both make strong points, in my view. I'd suggest that some further refinement in the language of the lead might be able to eliminate some of the ambiguity here, focusing with greater clarity on which aspects of this thing are uncontroversial, and which may simply be new spin on old phenomena like accountability.
On the other hand, I'll also note that the first sentence has a fundamental problem: Cancel culture or call-out culture is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles. The "modern form of ostracism" is the cancellation, not the culture of cancellation. The culture is something far more difficult to nail down, and indeed, the controversy lies in whether this "culture" is in fact a distinct thing. Perhaps the solution is to rename the article "Cancellation"? I'm not committed to this solution at all, but I thought I'd throw it out there as a possibility. Generalrelative (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I was listening to BBC World Service today and they referred to Spinoza being expelled from the Jewish community of Amsterdam in 1656 as an example of "cancel culture". Clearly this term is metastasizing, and perhaps in the process losing whatever distinct meaning (i.e. distinct from simple ostracism) it may have once had. In any case, just a footnote to my previous comment. Generalrelative (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 20 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Odaa7909.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 25 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sal.hammad21. Peer reviewers: Ilovelucy22092.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 14 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): The Social Experimenter. Peer reviewers: AWeis16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2022

Hallo kann ich editieren Italic text'--AfoxlP (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Bold text--AfoxlP (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC) AfoxlP (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ––FormalDude talk 08:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Copy message from the talk page of Draft:Cancel culture and bullying - “I propose merging Draft:Cancel culture and bullying into cancel culture. This has been suggested by an approved editor. ‘Bullying’ could be changed to ‘psychology’ as the scope of this piece goes beyond bullying alone and could leave room for broader additions based on psychological research in the future.”

This draft piece could be added to the page on cancel culture and discuss the ever growing breadth of professional psychological research on this modern concept. 212.129.76.103 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence is weird in several ways.

"Ostracism" is barely mentioned in the sources for the lead, or even in the article; it's mentioned in passing in one source, but not in a way that treats it as part of the term's core definition. The first two sentences also treats that framing as undisputed, whereas the next sentence addresses it as an "expression" used in debates, the next paragraph as a "notion", and the final paragraph as a plainly controversial concept. Likewise, the rest of the body largely addresses it as a neologism and a new term whose meaning and applicability are in dispute. This revert in particular exacerbates the problem, and I'll note that similar changes have been reverted several times using the same rationale; that doesn't seem to reflect the cited policy, since the bulk of this article (and likewise the bulk of the sources) address cancel culture as a term - even the academic sources largely approach it as a disputed concept. The few that don't (ie. Haidt) are some of the more biased sources on the topic and obviously can't be used to frame the article as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and will also point any observers to this past thread on the topic started by Aquillion: Talk:Cancel culture/Archive 3#Lead should describe this as a pejorative term. @Aquillion: if you'd like to try to rephrase the first sentence in a way that avoids WP:ISAWORDFOR problems, I'd definitely support that. Generalrelative (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Typo

In the Origins section, second sentence: The #MeToo movement game women (and men) the ability to call out their abusers on a forum where the accusations would be heard, especially against very powerful individuals.

game women → gave women

Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. Generalrelative (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Restore list of examples prominent cancelations

The new section giving prominent examples of cancellations, widely reported in the press, was immediately deleted. Why? If the article doesn't give any specific examples, what possible value does it have? I respectfully request that the section on prominent examples be restored.SiefkinDR (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
At the moment this doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for an article. It's just a long argument, without any structure. Giving a definition and then citing notable examples, with citations, would be a good start. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you think about adding Acknowledgement to the See Also section?

As I understood from this article, Cancel culture keeps status quo, in general. Why not to add to the See Also section a link to Acknowledgment in creative arts and sciences as an opposite practice. That may suggest to human minds an alternative behavior, or even to acknowledge (to admit) someone's albeit bad, but fame and its role in seeking the solution of a controversy of a person and society. What do you think? Tosha Langue (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cancel_culture/Archive_3&oldid=1089155668"